:<;•:<:-. 


mrM 


':^<i^: 


IP 


fii^: 


JiJ^l-lc 


siSi>.^«-ft'i::ii 


I'K":": 


;^^:^ 


,'^.> 


i:^- 


:<ft-:J*- 


''.<«• 


!k::^:->> 


'.•;<i< 
ii-;->> 


^^ 


uix";-. 


i 


::58i 


i<!<;:!ii- 


ifti:^'? 


:ft^< 


mm 


ii<'i'-y<<' 


I-Xn'  . 


:  $:»:';«r*J^:!^i^t?-^»i?;r:sJ 


DivisioQ 
Sectioa 


The  Childhood 
OF  Jesus  Christ 


ACCORDING  TO 


The  Canonical  Gospels 

With  an  Historical  Essay  on 

The  Brethren  of  the  Lord 


A.    DURAND,    S.    J. 


SSvSToFlffJi^ 


ff;^  (*     JAN  27  1911 


AN  AUTHORIZED  TRANSLATION  FROM  THE  FRENCH 
EDITED  BY 

REV.  JOSEPH  BRUNEAU,  S.  S.,  D.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA 

JOHN    JOS.   McVEY 

1910 

All  rights  reserved 


Nihil  Obstat: 

JACOBUS  F.  LOUGHLIN,  S.  T.  D., 

Censor  Librorum. 

February  ist,  1910. 


Imprimatur : 

4.  PATRITIUS  JOANNES  RYAN, 

Archiepiscopus  Philadelphiensis. 

February  12th,   1910. 


COPYRIGHTED,',1910,  BY  JOHN  JOS.   McVEY 


PREFATORY  WORDS. 

When  the  work  of  Pere  Durand,  S.  J.,  The 
Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ,  appeared  in  book  form 
it  was  a  joy  to  all  those  who  had  followed  his 
learned  articles  in  the  Revue  pratique  d'Apolo- 
getique,  as  well  as  those  published  in  the  Revue 
Biblique* — especially  the  last  on  The  Lord's 
Brethren  (January,  1908),  reprinted  as  a  fitting 
conclusion  to  the  study  on  the  Childhood  of 
Christ. 

The  writer  of  this  preface  was  then  engaged 
in  refuting  the  errors  of  Modernism  on  the  Gos- 
pel, before  a  well-loved  and  never-to-be-forgotten 
class  of  eager  students  of  Scripture  at  St.  John's 
Seminary,  Brighton,  Mass.  He  had  found  so 
precious  a  help  in  the  articles  of  Pere  Durand, 
that  he  hailed  in  advance  the  day  when  the  little 
book  would  be  translated  into  English.  It  would 
be  such  an  excellent  volume  to  read  at  Christmas 
time!  And  of  more  than  passing  interest  would 
this  book  prove  to  ecclesiastical  students  working 
in  the  field  of  Biblical  Science,  or  to  teachers  of 
Bible  classes  or  reading  circles. 

Should  he  have  had  any  leisure  at  the  time,  he 
would  have  gladly  availed  himself  of  the  oppor- 

*i898,  pp.  74-77,  452-3;  1903,  PP-  SSo-570;  1908,  p.  i. 


iv  Prefatory  Words. 

tunity  of  doing  good  by  translating  the  book  of 
Pere  Durand. 

Prater  qui  adjuvatur  a  fratre,  quasi  civitas 
firma.  Some  one  took  the  suggestion  readily  and 
did  the  work.  His  excellent  translation  is  now 
offered  to  the  public. 

The  tendency,  or  rather  the  tactics,  of  modern 
opponents  of  the  Gospel  is  to  admit  readily  the 
sincerity  of  the  Evangelists,  but  to  contend  that  a 
process  of  idealization  of  Christ's  figure,  of  trans- 
formation, embellishment  and,  as  it  were,  of 
transfiguration  of  the  primitive  tradition,  took 
place  under  the  influence  of  the  faith  of  the  Infant 
Church.  Especially  all  that  is  supernatural  in 
the  Gospel  would  belong  to  that  legendary  accre- 
tion. The  narratives  of  the  childhood  of  Christ 
would  therefore  be  foremost  among  such  legends 
due  to  the  creative  imagination  of  a  sect  bound 
to  worship  its  founder  and  to  assign  to  him  a 
more  than  human  origin.* 

The  result  of  this  system  would  be  that  all  the 
irradiations  of  Christmas  night,  the  sublime  con- 
descension of  the   Son  of  God  deigning  to  be 

*As  these  pages  are  going  to  press,  we  just  receive  the 
new  edition  of  Father  Tanquerey's  Apologetics — De  Vera 
Religione,  13th  edit,  1909;  it  is  very  gratifying  to  note 
that  his  chapter  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels  contains 
(pp.  181,  ff.)  a  strong  refutation  of  this  Modernistic 
theory. 


Prefatory  Words. 


made  flesh  and  to  dwell  among  us  would  be  but  a 
dream.  Christianity  indeed  would  disappear  if  we 
were  justly  denied  the  right  to  retain  in  our  Creed 
the  words  which  we  recite  on  our  knees,   "Ex 

INCARNATUS  EST  DE   SpIRITU   SaNCTO  EX   MaRIA 

ViRGiNE :  ET  HOMO  FACTUS  EST.""  And  this  is 
why  with  a  truly  strategic  sense  those  who  are 
bound  to  destroy  Christian  Faith  and  overthrow 
the  supernatural  concentrate  their  attacks  on  the 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy  of  Christ. 

The  recital  of  these  recent  attacks  would  show 
how  a  book  like  this  is  needed.  Let  it  suffice  to 
allude  to  an  article,  in  the  North  American  Re- 
view for  October,  1909,  too  weak  and  too  narrow 
that  we  should  do  the  writer  the  honor  of  men- 
tioning his  name,  but  which  is  supposed  to  ex- 
press the  attitude  of  many.  Christ  in  Modem 
Thought  is  the  title  of  that  article,  in  which  not 
even  an  allusion  is  made  to  the  existence  of  Cath- 
olic Belief  and  Theology,  but  which  tells  us,  as 
the  last  word  on  the  question,  that  "the  truth  of 
the  Incarnation  is  that  humanity  raised  to  its 
highest  power  becomes  divinity!"  This  is  called 
modern  thought !  Evanuerunt  in  cogitationes 
suas! 

This  affords  us  a  new  reason  to  rejoice  over 
the  fact  that  in  TJie  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ 


vi  Prefatory  Words. 

we  have,  from  a  Catholic  pen,  a  scientific,  pene- 
trating and  peremptory  demonstration  that  there 
is  not  one  single  serious  reason  to  reject  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Infancy  as  legendary;  that  there  is 
every  reason  to  accept  the  first-rate  historical 
authority  of  St.  Luke,  and  that  the  theology  of 
St.  Paul,  far  from  excluding  and  leaving  no  room 
for  the  Virgin-Birth  of  Christ,  supposes  and  even 
explicitly  teaches  the  supernatural  origin  of  the 
Son  of  Mary,  Jesus  Our  Lord,  born  in  Bethle- 
hem, in  the  city  of  David.  So  that  we  may,  as 
safely  as  ever,  proclaim  our  faith  around  the 
crib  of  the  Divine  Child:  ''Credo  in  Jesum 
Christum,  Filium  ejus  unicum,  qui  concep- 
Tus  est  de  Spiritu  Sancto^  natus  ex  Maria 

VlRGINE.'^ 

The  author  and  the  translator  have  conferred 
a  great  service  upon  the  Christian  world.  The 
book  will  help,  for  many  years,  to  render  effect- 
ive and  real  the  wish  that  we  address  to  all  the 
readers  for  a  Happy  and  Blessed  Christmas. 

J.  Bruneau,  S.  S. 

St.  Mary's   Seminary,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Feast  of  the  Maternity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
1909. 


THE  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

The  name  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  is  now  com- 
monly given  to  the  narratives  that  make  up  the 
first  two  chapters  of  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  adding  moreover,  for  the  latter, 
the  genealogy  contained  in  the  third  chapter: 
these  narratives  refer  to  the  birth  of  Jesus  and 
to  His  life  until  the  time  of  His  baptism. 

The  value  of  these  documents  has  become  the 
object  of  most  special  attacks.  Many  scholars 
readily  look  upon  them  as  a  kind  of  prehistoric 
Gospel  story  written  according  to  the  law  set  forth 
by  Heine  in  the  preface  of  his  edition  of  Apollo- 
dorus.  At  the  beginning  of  all  ancient  historical 
records  we  find  some  myths.  Those  professors 
in  the  chief  universities  of  Germany  are  few,  in- 
deed, who  have  not  struck  out  of  their  Creed  the 
belief  in  Christ's  Virgin-Birth.*  How  many  are 
the  ministers  of  the  Evangelical  Churches  who 
still  hold  the  Christmas  night  as  a  night  with  an 


*  "Two  of  the  Gospels  do,  it  is  true,  contain  an  intro- 
ductory history  (the  history  of  Jesus'  birth)  ;  but  we 
may  disregard  it;  for  even  if  it  contained  something  more 
trustworthy  than  it  does  actually  contain,  it  would  be  as 
good  as  useless  for  our  purpose."  A.  Harnack,  What  is 
Christianity  f  p.  33. 


viii  The  Author's  Preface. 

historical  significance?  Until  our  own  times,  it 
is  true,  the  Church  of  England  had  quite  success- 
fully withstood  the  blows  of  unbelieving  critics, 
but  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  within  the  last  ten 
years  or  so,  the  traditional  views  have  lost  ground 
even  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge :  a  fact  that  is, 
moreover,  only  too  plainly  paralleled  by  Prot- 
estantism in  the  United  States  also.  Parsons  and 
ministers  entrusted  with  the  care  of  souls  among 
common  people  are  influenced  by  the  decrease  of 
belief  in  the  higher  spheres  of  Universities. 

As  to  the  situation  in  the  Catholic  Church,  she 
has  nothing  to  fear  for  her  dogma.  The  humblest 
of  her  children  know  well  that  under  pain  of  the 
wreck  of  their  faith,  they  must  believe  from  the 
depth  of  their  souls  and  profess  with  their  lips, 
that  "J^sus  Christ  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  However,  in 
spite  of  the  precision  and  of  the  vigor  of  their 
belief;  those  Catholics  who  read  cannot  but  notice 
the  noise  of  the  fight  raging  around  them,  and 
they  feel  instinctively  the  need  to  take  up  the 
defensive.  On  what  historical  grounds  do  they 
hold  in  its  integrity  that  Christian  dogma  which 
Liberal  Protestants  throw  away  so  light-heart- 
edly ?  The  purpose  of  this  little  book  is  precisely 
to  help  them  to  answer  that  question. 


The  Author's  Preface.  ix 

Since  the  chief  interest  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  it  Christ  is  set 
forth  as  born  of  a  Virgin-Mother,  it  is  against 
that  belief  that  the  efforts  of  a  critical  school, 
which  styles  itself  independent — although,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  has  surrendered  itself  to  old 
naturalistic  prejudices — are  especially  directed. 
Hence  we  shall  make  the  Virgin-Birth  the  chief 
object  of  our  inquiries;  the  other  questions  are 
here  of  secondary  importance,  and  will  gather 
spontaneously,  as  it  were,  around  this  central 
point. 

Nor  must  our  readers  forget  the  special  diffi- 
culties met  by  the  apologist  in  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy.  The  latter  has  to  deal  with  facts  the 
Evangelists  did  not  witness;  even  the  testimonies 
on  which  they  rely  may  not  be  as  closely  con- 
nected with  these  events  in  question,  as  with  the 
rest  of  the  Gospel  record.  Besides,  by  their  very 
nature,  these  early  facts  were  witnessed  only  by 
a  few,  and  took  place  at  a  time  when  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  had  not  as  yet  become  an  object  of 
public  attention. 

Again,  this,  too,  must  not  be  overlooked;  in 
the  present  case,  still  more  than  in  many  others, 
attacks  against  the  Christian  belief  are  sure  to 
find  a  ready  help  in  the  reader's  ignorance  and 


The  Author's  Preface. 


shallowness.  By  working  upon  his  fondness  of 
simple  and  easy  solutions,  by  appealing  to  the 
mentality  of  a  twentieth-century  Westerner,  some 
critics,  coming  forward  with  an  objection,  can 
easily  move  him.  How  accept  the  notion  that 
Jesus  was  bom  of  a  Virgin? — he  is  asked — for 
admitting  a  wonder  of  that  kind,  undeniable 
proofs  are  necessary.  But  the  subject  in  question 
does  not  allow  them.  Again,  the  earliest  wit- 
nesses are  unacquainted  with  the  Virgin-Birth; 
nay,  the  Gospels  set  forth  Jesus  as  the  son  of 
Joseph.  Mary  always  a  Virgin?  But  does  not 
the  New  Testament  often  speak  of  the  fratres 
of  the  Lord? 

In  vain  does  the  apologist  recall  the  customs 
and  the  language  of  the  Jews  of  old,  who  called 
a  cousin  a  brother,  f rater,  and  held  a  merely  legal 
filiation  just  as  real  as  natural  filiation;  in  vain 
does  he  appeal  from  the  cursory  reading  of  the 
texts  to  a  deeper  study,  that  takes  into  account 
not  only  what  they  expressly  affirm,  but  also 
what  they  imply:  his  explanations,  well-founded 
as  they  are,  do  not  produce  in  many  readers  a 
decisive  and  final  impression.  To  a  most  simple 
difficulty  the  apologist  gives  a  complex  answer, 
laboriously  prepared;  he  uses  distinctions,  and 
we  all  know  how  little  the  public  mind  is  able  to 
grasp  the  meaning  and  import  of  distinctions. 


The  Author's  Preface.  xi 

This,  Father  Lagrange  remarked  but  a  few 
months  ago,  precisely  in  connection  with  the  topic 
on  which  we  are  engaged :  "True,  in  order  to 
reahze  these  things,  one  must  possess  a  refined 
sense  of  discrimination,  and  use  it  for  appreciat- 
ing properly  ages  most  remote  from  us.  For 
Herzog  all  this,  no  doubt,  is  "mere  gossip."* 
Of  a  similar  instance,  H.  Loriaux  wrote  recently 
as  follows :  "Well,  well !  here  is  a  religion  far 
beyond  the  comprehension  of  the  common  people, 
if,  in  order  to  believe  in  the  Virginal  Conception, 
one  must  know  'that  the  word  cousin  is  not  found 
in  Semitic  languages.'  "  *  That  is  not  the  ques- 
tion. The  rank  and  file — and  the  learned,  too — 
are  guided  in  their  faith  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church ;  but  I  think  we  are  not  unfair  in  demand- 
ing some  smatter  of  ancient  languages  and  cus- 
toms, even  of  those  who  impugn  the  dogma 
of  the  Church  in  the  name  of  scepticism.    Other- 


*  The  word  is  actually  uttered  by  G.  Herzog.  In  his 
article  on  Christ's  virginal  conception,  Revue  d'Hist.  et 
de  Litter,  religieuses,  1907,  p.  127,  he  styles  "mere  gossip" 
the  explanations  proposed  by  Catholic  theologians  regard- 
ing Mark,  3  21.  si. 

*  L'Autorite  des  Evangiles,  by  H.  Loriaux,  p.  53.  We 
need  not  draw  the  reader's  attention  to  the  rather  great 
confusion  made  by  Loriaux,  who  speaks  of  Jesus'  Virgin- 
Birth,  when  the  question  is  about  the  fratres  of  the  Lord. 


xii  The  Author's  Preface. 

wise,  the  "rank  and  file"  might  be  led  into  error. 
Arguments  like  that  of  Herzog  put  on  and  claim 
the  appearance  of  logical  rigor  and  of  simplicity 
and  straightforwardness.  To  answer  them  we  are 
obliged  to  make  use  of  explanations,  and  then  our 
opponents  reply  that  we  treat  them  with  "subtle- 
ties," "shifts,"  "gossip";  they  boldly  appeal  to 
evidence,  "perfect  clearness,"  "the  genealogical 
lists,"  "there  is  but  one  explanation,  not  two." 
Let  us  repeat  once  more  that  this  is  simply  to 
reckon  on  the  shallowness  of  the  readers.  The 
public  at  large  can  judge  only  after  its  own 
criteria;  but  in  our  days,  it  knows  hardly  any 
sonship  but  the  physiological,  and  therefore  never 
dreams  of  putting  on,  as  it  were,  the  mental  atti- 
tude of  the  men  of  old,  the  more  so  that  it  may 
be  imposed  upon  by  the  writer's  perfect  self- 
assurance.  Better-informed  judges — over-exact- 
ing, of  course — will  think  successes  of  that  kind 
are  too  easily  obtained."  * 

Again,  the  apologist  is  at  times  expected  to 
bring  forward  more  than  he  is  able  and  intends 
to  do.  He  writes  first  of  all  for  believers,  in 
order  to  maintain  them  in  their  faith,  by  showing 
that  the  difficulty  is  groundless,   or  at  least  is 


*  Revue  Biblique,  1907,  p.  448. 


The  Author  s  Preface.  xiii 

such  that  it  must  not  shake  their  legitimately 
acquired  certainty. 

As  to  unbelievers,  if  they  reject  altogether  the 
historical  value  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  be- 
cause miracles  are  related  therein,  the  only  apolo- 
getical  method  that  can  be  used  with  them  is 
merely  to  refer  them  to  the  fundamental  problem 
of  the  supernatural,  its  possibility  and  its  presence 
in  the  world.  To  dismiss  a  priori  the  existence 
of  Angels,  is  to  bind  oneself  beforehand  to  hold  as 
legendary  the  narratives  that  tell  us  of  their  ap- 
pearing to  Zachary,  Mary  and  the  shepherds  of 
Bethlehem. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  solution  of  the  funda- 
mental problem  regarding  the  divine  character  of 
Christianity  does  not  necessarily  rest  on  the  truth 
of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy;  whether  Jesus  was 
born  of  a  Virgin  or  not,  adored  by  the  Magi  or 
not,  carried  into  Egypt  and  thus  taken  away  from 
Herod,  or  not.  These  are  so  many  questions  out- 
side the  scope  of  the  treatise  on  Revealed  Reli- 
gion: in  that  treatise,  the  theologian's  only  object 
is  to  prove,  by  solid  arguments,  that  Christ  came 
in  the  name  of  God,  to  teach  us  with  authority 
the  way  of  salvation. 

Likewise,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  historical  au- 
thority of  the  Gospels  can  stand  without  a  per- 


xiv  The  Authors  Preface. 

emptory  defence  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy. 
We  have  just  said  that  the  merely  human  testi- 
mony of  these  first  chapters  does  not  come  before 
us  in  conditions  as  favorable  as  the  narrative  of 
Jesus'  public  life.  Even  though  the  former  were 
a  history  written  beforehand,  partly  legendary  or 
mythical,  the  latter  would  not  necessarily,  on  that 
account,  be  unworthy  of  belief,  it  would  follow 
merely  that  our  Evangelists  were  no  more  exact- 
ing than  the  best  profane  historians.  Does  this 
imply  that  Christian  scholars  must  give  up  al- 
together any  critical  defence  of  the  authenticity 
and  truthfulness  of  the  documents  that  pertain 
to  Jesus'  origin  and  childhood?  Not  at  all, 
otherwise,  we  would  not  have  composed  this  little 
work.  But  it  does  imply  that  it  is  of  real  impor- 
tance for  the  Christian  scholar  to  state  accurately, 
beforehand,  the  method  and  limits  of  that  de- 
fence. 

History  proves  satisfactorily  that  our  belief 
regarding  Jesus'  origin  and  infancy  continues  the 
early  Christian  faith,  that  of  the  generation  which 
witnessed  the  apparition  of  the  canonical  Gospels. 

The  orthodox  Church  has  always  looked  upon 
Christ's  virginal  conception,  as  well  as  the  events 
with  which  it  is  accompanied  in  the  narrative  of 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  as  historical  realities. 


The  Author's  Preface.  xv 

In  that  belief,  was  she  right  or  was  she  wrong? 
Put  in  these  words,  the  question  admits  of  two 
answers.  The  first,  which  has  a  broad  bearing, 
rests  on  the  general  proofs  appealed  to  by  Chris- 
tianity in  behalf  of  its  truth.  The  Church  of 
Christ  comes  from  God,  and  if,  by  special  pre- 
rogative, her  faith  has  remained  free  from  error, 
we  have  no  right  to  distinguish  in  her  Creed  what 
is  to  be  held  and  what,  in  the  name  of  the  so- 
called  requirements  of  the  modern  mind,  some 
claim  should  be  dropped. 

The  second  answer,  more  direct,  although  less 
conclusive  as  regards  this  or  that  point,  consists 
in  the  historical  justification  of  what  is  contained 
in  our  documents.  The  facts  related  therein  are 
sufficiently  guaranteed  for  their  truth  to  remain 
unchallenged,  in  spite  of  the  character  of  the 
marvelous  with  which  most  of  them  are  stamped. 
The  continuity  of  the  testimonies  and  their  con- 
nection with  the  facts  do  away  with  the  strictly 
so-called  mythical  hypothesis ;  yet  in  spite  of  what 
we  have  just  said,  the  narrative  of  the  Infancy 
gives  rise  to  a  certain  number  of  special  difficul- 
ties which  a  merely  critical  exegesis  cannot  solve 
so  as  to  bring  to  all  minds  complete  satisfaction. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  grant  the  possibility  of 
a  supernatural  intervention  is  not  to  bind  oneself 


xvi  The  Author's  Preface. 

to  admit  as  actually  real  all  possible  miracles,  but 
only  those  of  which  the  existence  is  legitimately 
attested ;  and  on  this  ground,  many  questions  arise 
even  for  believers,  which  we  cannot  solve  merely 
by  saying  that  all  these  texts  regarding  the  In- 
fancy are  inspired  and  free  from  any  kind  of 
error.  Even  then,  we  must  know  their  meaning 
and  exact  bearing:  for  instance,  to  the  question 
as  to  what  value  the  Evangelists  attached  to  the 
genealogies  of  Jesus,  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion has  given  no  firm  and  consistent  answer: 
this  is  one  point — out  of  many — which  comes 
within  the  province  of  historical  inquiry  and 
exegesis. 

The  subject  has  been  divided  as  follows :  ( i ) 
General  Attack  and  Defence;  (2)  History  of  the 
Dogma  of  Jesus'  Virgin-Birth;  (3)  Its  Modern 
Opponents;  (4)  Detailed  Criticism  of  the  Gospel 
Texts;  (5)  Comparison  between  the  Gospels  and 
the  other  Parts  of  the  New  Testament;  (6) 
Positive  Credibility  and  Historical  Value  of  the 
Canonical  Texts  relating  to  Jesus'  Infancy. 

This  little  work  is  more  than  a  mere  reproduc- 
tion of  the  articles  published  in  the  Revue  pratique 
d'Apologetique,  from  October,  1906,  to  July, 
1907.  In  several  places  the  primitive  text  has 
been  done  over  again  and  completed.     In  order 


The  Author's  Preface.  xvii 

that  the  reader  may  easily  follow  the  discussions 
we  are  about  to  expose,  we  give,  first,  a  literal 
translation  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Mat- 
thew and  of  St.  Luke,  according  to  the  critical 
edition  of  Eb.  Nestle   (1906).* 

Ore  Place,  Hastings. 

September  8,  1907. 


*As  may  be  seen  at  p.  i,  note,  our  English  translation 
is  that  of  Father  Spencer.  However,  anything  special  to 
Father  Durand's  translation  has  been  introduced  into  the 
text.— T. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGES 

Prefatory    words    iii-vi 

The   author's  preface    vii-xvii 

What  is  understood  by  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  vii 

Attitude  of  critics  toward  it   vii 

The    Virgin-Birth,    a    dogma    of    the     Catholic 

Church.     Aim  of  this  study    viii-ix 

Special   difficulties   met  by  the  Apologist,  in  the 

Gospel   of   the  Infancy    ix-xiii 

Relations  between  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  on 
one  hand,  and  the  divine  character  of  Chris- 
tianity,   and   the   historical    authority   of    the 

Gospels,  on  the  other    xiii-xiv 

Questions  to  be  answered :  Is  the  Church  right, 
when  holding  as  historical  the  Gospel  of  the 

Infancy  ?    xv 

First  answer,  based  on  the  general  proofs  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity;  second  answer,  his- 
torical   justification    of    the    contents    of    the 

documents    xv-xvi 

Division  of  the  subject   xvi 

TRANSLATION    OF   THE   TEXT. 

St.   Matthew.     Chapters  I-II    i-ii 

St.  Luke.     Chapters  I-II,  III   (23-38)    12-33 

CHAPTER   I. 

General  Attack  and  Defence. 

Attack  :  Wonderful  character  of  the  events  re- 
corded in  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  34 

The  witnesses  of  Jesus'  Infancy  had  passed  away 

at  the  time  Matthew  and  Luke  wrote  34-35 


Contents.  xix 


PAGES 

Disagreement  between  Matthew  and  Luke   35 

Comparisons  between  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy 

and  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  35-36 

Defence:  The  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  historical 
on  the  same  grounds  as  the  other  parts  of 

the  Gospels   37 

Answer  as  to  supernatural  interventions   37-39 

Difference  between  the  wonderful  in  the  canonical 
Gospels,  and  the  wonderful  in  the  apocryphal 

Gospels   39-41 

Artistic  form  of  the  Canticles,  granted  41 

Discrepancies,  but  not  contradictions  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  the  Infancy  42 

The  Virgin-Birth  not  necessary  a  priori,  but  ac- 
cepted, because  resting  on  a  solidly  established 
Apostolic  tradition   43-44 

CHAPTER  II. 

History   of  the   Dogma   of   Jesus'   Virgin-Birth. 

Strauss'  mythical  explanation,  cannot  be  held...  45 
Explicit  statements  of   Matthew  and  Luke  re- 
garding Jesus'  miraculous  conception   45-46 

The  earliest  opponent  of  that  belief,  Cerinthus 

(end  of  the  first  century)    46-47 

Survival  of  his  teaching,  among  the  Ebionites...  48-51 
In  the  second  century,  the  Virgin-Birth  held  as 

a  necessary  article  of  Christology  51 

St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  (about  106)   52-53 

Aristides   (about  125)    54-55 

St.  Justin:  First  Apology  (between  138  and  161)  55-s6 

Dialogue  with  Trypho    56-60 

St.  Iren^us,  Against  Heresies  (about  180)   60-63 

The  Apostles'  Creed  63-64 


XX  Contents. 


The  faith  of  the  second  century  passes  in  its  en- 
tirety to  the  following  generations.  Nay,  the 
variations  of  the  Jews  in  their  accounts  of  the 
Gospel  narrative  are  due  to  the  firm  charac- 
ter of  that  belief   64-66 

CHAPTER   III. 

Modern  Opponents. 

Attacks  until  the  rise  of  the  Encylopaedists 66-67 

GoTTLOB    Paulus     (works :    1800-1828).    Funda- 
mental principle  of  his  method  of  criticism..  67 
His  explanation  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy....         68-69 
Criticism  of  that  explanation  by  Olshausen  and 

Hengstenberg    69 

David  Frederick  Strauss  (Life  of  Jesus,  1835)  : 

Gospel  Myth  71-73 

Rules  for  distinguishing  what  is  mythical,   from 

what  is  historical   73 

Difficulties  met  in  the  application  of  the  system 

to  the   New  Testament    74-76 

Application  of  Strauss'  system  to  the  Gospel  of 

the   Infancy    76-81 

However,  Strauss  claims  to  preserve  Christianity        81-82 
Strauss  and  the  actual  critical  schools :  the  latter 

affect  to  abide  by  the  texts  only  82-84 

P.  W.  ScHMiEDEL,  on  Matthew  84 

Harnack  and  others  on  Luke   85-87 

Inconsistencies  in  the  texts,  due  to  interpolations        87-88 

Loisy's  view  in  this  regard   88-89 

Two  problems  of  Higher  Criticism:  Is  the  tradi- 
tion found  in  Matthew  prior  to  that  found  in 
Luke?  Greek  or  Judceo-Christian  origin  of 
the  Catholic  belief?  Solution  set  forth  by 
Otto  Pfleiderer  -. 90-94 


Contents.  xxi 


PAGES 

Herzog's  solution   94-96 

Other  mythological  instances  of  virgin-births 96 

Expansion   of   the   conclusions    advanced   by   the 

radical  critical  schools   of   Germany :   T.   K. 

Cheyne,  Fred.  Conybeare   98-99 

Refutations  to  which  they  have  given  rise :  on  the 

part  of  Conservative  Protestants 99-100 

On  the  part  of  Catholics  101-102 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Detailed  Criticism  of  the  Text  of  the  Gospels. 

Matthew  i  and  2  is  neither  a  subsequent  addition:  103 
Objections    drawn    from    the    copy    used    by    the 

Ebionites    103-104 

From  the  Diatessaron   105 

From  some  readings  of  Matthezv,  i  ^^   106 

Nor    a    juxtaposition    of    two    sections    (Virgin- 
Birth,    Genealogy)  :    107 

Objections    drawn    from   Matthew,    i  ^^ :    reading 

of  the  Syriac  MS.  of  1894  108 

Quotation  in  Timothy  and  Aqtiila   111-116 

No  reason  for  distinguishing  in  Luke,  1-2  20  from 

2  21-52   119-122 

Nor  for  suppressing  134-35.  Harnack  122-133 

Conybeare  133-134 

Answer   to   the   objections    drawn    from   the   ab- 
sence of  the  narratives  of  the  Gospel  of  the 

Infancy:  in  Mark   134-142 

In  John  142-146 


xxii  Contents. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Comparison  Between  the  Gospels  and  the  Other  Parts 
OF  the  New  Testament. 

pages 
Explanation  of  Paul's  relative  silence  as  to  the 

Virgin-Birth    147-149 

Go/.    4       lyevofievov  Ik  yvvaKKO^ I49"I5I 

Is  the  Virgin-Birth  a  corollary  of  Paul's  teaching 

on  Redemption  ? 151-152 

Compatibility  between  the  Pauline  statement: 
Christ,  according  to  the  flesh,  is  David's  pos- 
terity, and  the  belief  in  the  Virginal  Con- 
ception         153-160 

Answer  to  the  difficulty  drawn  from  Acts  13  ^^ 
and  Rom.  i  2-* :  "Made  the  Son  of  God  .  .  . 
by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead"   161-165 

Answer    confirmed    by    a    comparison    between 

Paul's  Epistles  and  Peter's  discourses  165-167 

Last  objections  drawn  from  another  appeal  to  the 
Gospel  of  Mark,  and  to  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Word,  in  John   168-171 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Positive  Trustworthiness  and  Historical  Value  of  the 
Texts  Concerning  Jesus'  Infancy. 

Luke,  1-2.  The  first  two  chapters  of  Luke  are 
historical  on  the  same  grounds  as  the  other 

parts  of  his  Gospel   172-175 

Luke's  sources   175-182 

Internal  guarantees  of  authenticity   182-184 

Differences,  favorable  to  Luke's  authenticity,  be- 
tween his  narratives  of  Jesus'  Infancy,  and 
the  narratives  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels 182-189 


Contents.  xxiii 


PAGES 

Comparison,  favorable  to  Luke,  between  his  Gos- 
pel  on   one   hand,   and   Jewish   legends   and 

heathen  myths,  on  the  other  190-195 

The  analogies  drawn  by  the  Apologists  between 
Christian  mysteries  and  the  myths  of  heathen- 
ism are  an    argument  ad  hominem   196-197 

Proofs  as  to  details :  The  Canticles :  Magnificat, 

Benedictus,  Nunc  Dimittis   197-203 

Census  of  Cyrinus   204-21 1 

Jesus  in  the  Temple   211-212 

The  Angels'  apparition  212-213 

Matthew,  1-2.     Cohesion  of  the  narrative  in  these 

two  chapters  213-214 

Matthew's  sources    214-215 

Palestinian  inspiration  of  these  chapters  216-217 

Evident  purpose  to  show  in  Jesus'  birth  and  in- 
fancy the  fulfilment  of  the  Messianic  proph- 
ecies,  Isaias    7  1*  :    iSou  'n-  irap9ivoi 2l8-226 

Wonderful  character  of  Matthew's  narratives 226-228 

The  dreams    228-231 

The   Magi    231-237 

The  murder  of  the  Innocents  237-238 

The  flight  into  Egypt   238-239 

Genealogies  of  Jesus  Christ  {Matthew  i  ^'^^ ; 
Luke  3  23-38)  Difficulty  raised  by  their  dis- 
agreement: (a)  no  solution  fully  satisfactory  240 

(b)  Attempts  at  solution,  in  the  past  240-241 

(c)  Explanation  proposed  in  our  days  241-244 

(d)  The  genealogy  of  Luke  more  historical  than 

that  of  Matthew  244-245 

(e)  Sources  of  these  genealogies  246-247 

(f)  Importance  of  these  genealogies  for  the 
Evangelists    247-250 


xxiv  Contents. 


PAGES 

The  accidental  discrepancies  between  Luke  and 
Matthew  confirm  their  agreement  regarding 
the  essential  data  of  the  tradition  they  record.     250-252 

That  tradition,  proved  historical  on  other  grounds    252-253 

Explanation  of  Luke's  and  Matthew's  silence  on 

some   points    253-255 

We  must  not  be  more  exacting  for  Biblical  than 

for  profane  documents  255-257 

And  study  them  carefully,  but  with  an  unbiased 

mind    257-258 

THE   BRETHREN   OF  THE  LORD. 
The  problem.     Purpose  of  this  study 259-260 

CHAPTER  L 
The  Facts. 
The    "Brethren    of    the    Lord"    are    mentioned : 
(i)  by  the  Four  Evangelists,  the  Acts,  Paul; 

(2)  by  JosEPHUS,  Hegesippus   260-265 

Concerning  the  fragment  ascribed  to  Papias 266 

CHAPTER  n. 
Explanations. 

1.  Explanation  of  Hegesippus   266-269 

2.  View  of  Tertullian 269-270 

Of  Clement  of  Alexandria 271-272 

Of  Origen  ( St.  Hilary)   272-274 

3.  Controversy,  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 

concerning    Mary's    perpetual    virginity :    its 

origin    274-276 

Helvidius  :  refutation  by  St.  Jerome  ;  Jovinian  : 
refutation  by  St.  Jerome;  by  St.  Ambrose: 
excommunication  of  Jovinian  and  of  Bonosus    276-278 

4.  Analysis  of  St.  Jerome's  De  perpetua  Virginia 

tate  MaricE,  adversus  Helvidium:  (a)  The 
views  of  Helvidius  opposed  to  the  traditional 
faith    278-280 


Contents.  xxv 


PAGES 

(b)  The  texts   281-286 

(c)  Explanation  of  the  formula  "Brethren  of  the 

Lord    286-288 

(d)  Grounds  on  which  the  traditional  belief  in 
Mary's  perpetual  virginity  rests :  implicit 
affirmation,  in  the  narrative  of  the  Annuncia- 
tion         288-289 

The   legacy   of    His    Mother   made   by  Jesus   to 

John     290-291 

The  appellation  of  Son  of  Mary  291-293 

The    attitude    of    those    called    in    the    Gospel 

"Brethren  of  the  Lord,"  toward  Jesus  294 

5.  St.  Jerome  upheld  by  the  Fathers  of  the  East 

and  of  the  West   294-295 

The  definitions  by  Popes  and  Councils  295-296 

Attempts  at  stating  with  accuracy  the  degree  of 
relationship  between  Jesus  and  those  whom 
the  documents  call  the  "Lord's  Brethren." 
The   "Lord's   Brethren"   may  be   children  of 

St.  Joseph  by  a  former  marriage  296-298 

Cousins  of  Jesus  (St.  Jerome)    298-300 

St.  Jerome's  sentiment  on  St.  Joseph's  virginity 

is  adopted  by  several  other  Fathers   300-301 

Complementary  explanations  of  St.  Jerome's  view     301-304 
St.  Joseph's  virginity  in  the  Latin  Church   304-305 

CHAPTER  HL 

Criticism  and  Conclusions. 

(i)  Dogmatic  tradition  as  to  the  vieaning  not  to 
be  given  to  the  texts  referring  to  the 
"Brethren  of  the  Lord"  305-312 

(2)  No  dogmatic  statement  regarding  the  degree 
of  relationship  between  Jesus  and  those  called 
in  the  texts  the  "Brethren  of  the  Lord" 313-316 


TRANSLATION  OF  THE  TEXT.* 

ST.  MATTHEW. 
I. 

I.    GENEALOGY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST/'^®. 

^  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
David,  the  son  of  Abraham. f 

^  Abraham  begot  Isaac ;  Isaac  begot  Jacob ; 
Jacob  begot  Judah  and  his  brothers ;  ^  Judah  begot 
Peres  and  Zerah  by  Tamar ;  Peres  begot  Hesron ; 
Hesron  begot  Ram ;  *  Ram  begot  Amminadab ; 
Amminadab  begot  Nahshon ;  Nahshon  begot  Sal- 
mon ;  °  Salmon  begot  Boaz  by  Rahab ;  Boaz  begot 
Obed  by  Ruth;  Obed  begot  Jesse;  ®  Jesse  begot 
David  the  King. 

David  the  King  begot  Solomon  by  her  zvho 
was  the  wife  of  Uriah ;  ^  Solomon  begot  Re- 
hoboam;  Rehoboam  begot  Abijah;  Abijah  begot 


*  The  translation  is  given  from  Spencer's  "The  Four 
Gospels :  New  Translation,  igoo." 

f'Bipxoi  yeveiTfws,  Liber  generationis  may  be  translated  by 
"genealogy."  The  appellation  "Ijjo-oOs  xp''<^'^°^  is  seldom  used  in 
the  Gospels ;  outside  this  passage,  it  is  found  also  in  Mark 
I  1  and  Matthew  i  ^^,  i6  ^i ;  and  even  the  texts  vary  as  to 
the  last  two  passages.  In  John  i  ''■'^  and  17  ^,  xpi^To^  seems 
to  be  used  always  as  a  proper  name.  Concerning  xpurrds  and 
wlbs  AovetS  as  Mcssianic  titles,  cf.  Dalman,  The  Words  of 
Jesus  (English  translation),  p.  289-324. 


2  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Asa ;  ®  Asa  begot  Jehoshaphat ;  Jehoshaphat  begot 
Joram ;  Joram  begot  Uzziah ;  *  ^  Uzziah  begot 
Jotham;  Jotham  begot  Ahaz;  Ahaz  begot  Heze- 
kiah ;  ^°  Hezekiah  begot  Manasseh ;  Manasseh 
begot  Amon ;  Amon  begot  Josiah ;  "  Josiah  begot 
Jechoniah  and  his  brothers  at  the  time  of  the 
removal  to  Babylon,  f 


*  Between  Joram  and  Uzziah  (Ozias)  three  interme- 
diaries have  been  omitted.  According  to  IV  Kings,  these 
are  Ahaziah  (Ochozias),  Jehoash  (Joas)  and  Amaziah, 
whose  names,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  are  here  introduced,  in 
some  Greek  and  Syriac  MSS.  According  to  /  Paralipome- 
non  3ii'i2  (Sept.),  Uzziah  (Ozias)  is  truly  the  son  of 
Joram,  so  that  the  three  kings  omitted  would  be  Jehoash 
(Joas),  Amaziah  and  Azariah.  The  discrepancy  comes  ap- 
parently from  the  fact  that  in  the  LXX  'Oiiat  (b  -o^eta) 
designates  sometimes  Ahaziah  (Ochozias)  and  sometimes, 
too,  Azariah  {^=Uzziah,  Ozias).  Confusions  like  this  are 
not  uncommon  in  the  Greek  transcription  of  Hebrew 
names.  Cf.  W.  C.  Allen,  A  Critical  and  Excgetical  Com- 
mentary on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matfhezv,  1907, 
p.  4- 

t  According  to  I  Parol,  3  ^^  Jechoniah  had  only  one 
brother  named  Zedekiah.  On  the  other  hand,  Jechoniah  is 
not  the  son,  but  the  grandson  of  Josiah.  Finally,  in  the 
actual  text,  this  second  series  of  the  genealogy  C^"^^) 
counts  only  thirteen  names  instead  of  fourteen,  as  should 
be  the  case,  according  to  verse  17,  unless  Jechoniah  be 
counted  both  in  the  second  and  in  the  third  series ;  but 
this  is  abnormal  and  arbitrary.  Hence,  some  have  thought 
that  because  of  an  alteration   of   the  primitive   text,   the 


St.  Matthczv,  I. 


"  After  the  removal  to  Babylon,  Jechoniah  be- 
got Salathiel ;  Salathiel  begot  Zerubbabel ;  ^^  Ze- 
riibbabel  begot  Abiud;  Abitid  begot  Eliakim; 
Eliakim  begot  Azor ;  ^*  Azor  begot  Sadok ;  Sadok 
begot  Achim ;  Achim  begot  Eliud ;  ^^  Eliud  begot 
Eleazar;  Eleazar  begot  Matthan;  Matthan  begot 
Jacob ;  '^^  Jacob  begot  Joseph,  the  husband  of 
Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called 
Christ.* 


name  of  Jehoiakim  (the  son  of  Josiah)  has  been  left  out, 
so  that  we  must  read ;  Josiah  begot  Jehoiakim  and  his 
brothers;  Jehoiakim  begot  Jechoniah  at  the  time  of  the 
removal  to  Babylon.  In  fact,  this  is  the  reading  of  some 
comparatively  recent  Greek  and  Syriac  MSS. ;  nor  must  we 
forget  that,  according  to  St.  Irenseus,  III,  xxi,  9,  the 
genealogy  given  by  St.  Matthew  sets  forth  St.  Joseph  as  the 
descendant  of  Jehoiakim  and  of  Jechoniah.  The  confusion 
may  have  occurred  the  more  easily  that  Jechoniah  is  called 
also  Jehoiakim.  For  the  defence  of  this  sentiment,  of. 
Th.  Zahn,  Das  Evangelium  des  Matthaeus,  pp.  48-56.  In 
this  hypothesis  reference  is  made,  in  verse  11,  to  Jehoiakim 
and  his  two  brothers:  Jehoahaz  (Joachaz)  (  =  Shallum) 
and  Zedekiah  (=Mattaniah),  who  ruled  successively  in 
Judaea;  history  has  left  us  nothing  about  a  fourth  son  of 
Josiah,  named  Johanan.     Cf.  IV  Kings,  23  30.248:  /  Parol., 

*  The  Syriac  version  of  the  Gospels  found  in  1894  on 
Mount  Sinai  reads  at  verse  16  as  follows :  "Joseph  to 
whom  the  Virgin  Mary  was  betrothed,  begot  Jesus,  who 
is  called  Christ."     Between  this  reading  and  that  of  the 


4  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

^^  So  all  the  generations  from  Abraham  to 
David  are  fourteen  generations;  and  from  David 
to  the  removal  to  Babylon  fourteen  generations, 
and  from  the  removal  to  Babylon  unto  Christ 
fourteen  generations. 


Christ's  virginal  conception/®"^^. 


^^  Now  in  this  wise  was  Jesus  Christ  begotten : 
His  mother  Mary  having  been  espoused  to  Joseph, 
before  they  came  together  she  was  found  with 


Received  Text,  taken  as  two  extremes,  various  other  read- 
ings have  been  noticed  in  the  MSS.  Those  readings  may 
be  reduced  to  two  types : 

iyfvvriaev  'lri<Tovv  represented  by  five  MSS.  of  the  so-called 
Ferrara  group,  346,  788,  543,  826,  828;  by  the  old  Latin 
MSS.  a  g^,  k  [virgo  is  omitted  in  q]. 

(b)  Joseph,  cui  desponsata  virgo  Maria,  Maria  autem 
genuit  Jesum  represented  by  the  old  Latin  MSS.  c  [b, 
cui  desponsata  erat  virgo  Maria,  virgo  autem  Maria  genuit 
Jesum]  d,  cui  desponsata  virgo  Maria  peperit  (Chris- 
tum) Jesum;  and  with  this  reading  the  Curetonian  version 
agrees :  To  whom  was  betrothed  the  Virgin  Mary  zvho  begot 
Jesus. — Cf.  K.  Lake,  in  the  Journal  of  Theo.  Studies,  1899, 
Vol.  1,  p.  119;  R.  Harris,  Further  Researches  into  the 
History  of  the  Ferrara  group,  1900,  p.  7. 

Later  on,  in  chapter  iv,  we  shall  discuss  which  of  these 
readings  may  be  held  as  primitive. 


St.  Matthciv,  I. 


child  [by  the  power]  of  the  Holy  Ghost.*  ''  And 
Joseph  her  husband,  being  a  just  man,  and  not 
willing  to  expose  her  to  public  notice,  was  minded 
to  put  her  away  privately.  ^°  But  while  he  thought 
over  the  matter,  an  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared 
to  him  in  a  dream,  saying :  "Joseph,  son  of  David, 
fear  not  to  receive  Mary  thy  wife ;  for  that  which 
is  conceived  in  her  is  [the  work]  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  ^'  And  she  shall  bring  forth  a  son ;  and 
thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus;  for  he  shall  save 
his  people  from  their  sins."     "  Now  all  this  has 


*The  writers  of  old  do  not  agree  as  to  whether  Mary 
was  married  or  betrothed,  at  the  time  of  the  Annunciation ; 
modern  scholars  generally  hold  that  she  was  only  be- 
trothed, and  therefore  they  understand  the  verb  <TvviX6tlv, 
not  of  the  conjugal  relation,  but  of  cohabitation:  Mary 
had  not  as  yet  been  brought  to  Joseph's  house.  Among 
the  Jews,  the  young  bride  still  remained  one  year  with 
her  parents,  until  the  day  she  was  solemnly  taken  to  the 
bridegroom's  house.  This  was  the  chief  marriage  cere- 
luor.y  {Dent.,  20'').  However,  the  contract  of  betrothal 
sufficed  to  establish  the  fundamental  right  of  the  marriage- 
union :  it  made  the  names,  husband,  wife,  legitimate,  nor 
could  it  be  broken  but  by  a  repudiation  put  down  in  writing, 
just  as  for  a  marriage-union  strictly  so  called.  Unfaithful- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  bride  was  punished  like  adultery; 
on  the  other  hand,  in  case  the  bride  would  become  the 
mother  of  a  child  nor  her  prospective  husband  protest,  the 
offspring~was  looked  upon  as  legitimate.    Deut.,  22-24. 


6  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ 

come  to  pass,  that  that  which  was  spoken  by  the 
Lord  through  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled : 

^^  "Behold  the  Virgin  shall  he  with  child,  and 
shall  bring  forth  a  son, 

And  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel; " 
which  translated  means  "God  with  us."  *  ^*  And 
Joseph  rose  up  from  his  sleep,  and  did  as  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  commanded  him,  and  received 
her  as  his  wife.  ^^  And  he  knew  her  not  till  she 
brought  forth  a  [first  born]  son:  f  and  he  called 
his  name  Jesus. 


*  The  Hebrew  text  of  Isaias  7  ^*  reads  literally :  Behold, 
the  Virgin  is  with  child,  and  beareth  a  son,  and  shall  call 
his  name  Emmanuel.  More  intent  on  the  meaning  than  on 
the  words,  the  Evangelist  agrees  rather  with  the  LXX  who 
had  translated  like  this :  Behold,  the  Virgin  shall  conceive, 
and  bear  a  son,  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Emmanuel. 

t  The  knowledge  designated  by  the  words  oix  iyivuxTKtv  avrriv 
is  that  which  results  from  the  consummation  of  marriage. 
The  Vatic,  and  the  Sinait.  leave  out  npmroTOKov,  primo- 
genitum,  which  is  probably  a  gloss,  borrowed  from 
Luke  2  '^. 


St.  Matthew,  II. 


II. 


3.    THE   ADORATION    OF   THE    MAGi/"". 

^  When  Jesus  was  born  at  Bethlehem  in  Judaea 
in  the  days  of  King  Herod,  there  came  wise  men 
from  the  East  to  Jerusalem,  "  saying :  "Where  is 
he  that  is  born  King  of  the  Jews  ?  for  we  saw  his 
star  in  the  East,  and  are  come  to  worship  him." 
^  When  King  Herod  heard  this  he  was  troubled, 
and  all  Jerusalem  with  him.  *  And  he  assembled 
all  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people,  and 
inquired  of  them  where  the  Christ  should  be  born. 
®  They  told  him :  "At  Bethlehem  in  Judaea :  for 
thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet : 

^  ''And  thou  Bethlehem,  land  of  Judah, 

Art  in  no  wise  least  among  the  princes  [or :  chief 

cities'\   of  Judah: 
For  out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  a  Leader, 
Who  shall  ride  my  people  Israel."  * 


*  In  the  Hebrew  text,  the  prophecy  of  Micheas  5  ^ 
reads  literally:  But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephrathah,  art  little 
to  be  reckoned  among  the  "thousands"  of  Judah.  (The 
cities  of  about  one  thousand  citizens  and,  as  such,  ruling 
over  the  neighboring  towns.)  Yet  out  of  thee  shall  one 
come  forth  unto  tne  that  is  to  he  ruler  in  Israel.     Free  as 

3 


8  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

''  Then  Herod,  privately  calling  the  wise  men, 
ascertained  of  them  the  time  when  the  star  ap- 
peared to  them.  ^  And  he  sent  them  to  Bethle- 
hem, and  said :  "Go  and  search  out  carefully  con- 
cerning the  child ;  and  when  you  have  found  him, 
bring  me  word  that  I  too  may  come  and  worship 
him."  ®  They,  having  heard  the  King,  went  their 
way;  and  lo,  the  star,  which  they  had  seen  in  the 
East,  went  before  them,  till  it  came  and  stood 
over  where  the  child  was.  ^°  When  they  saw  the 
star  they  rejoiced  with  very  great  joy.  ^^  And 
they  went  into  the  house  and  saw  the  child  with 
Mary  his  mother;  and  they  fell  down  and  Avor- 
shipped  him;  and  opening  their  treasures  they 
offered  him  gifts,  gold,  and  frankincense,  and 
myrrh.  ^'  And  being  warned  in  a  dream  that 
they  should  not  return  to  Herod,  they  departed 
to  their  own  country  by  another  way. 


the  quotation  may  be,  it  expresses  the  main  idea  of  the 
text,  viz.,  That  from  Bethlehem  an  unparalleled  leader,  the 
King  Messias,  shall  come  to  rule  Israel.  The  prophet  sets 
off  the  contrast  between  the  honor  paid  to  Bethlehem  and 
its  small  political  importance,  while  the  Evangelist  draws 
attention  to  the  Messianic  glory,  which  makes  the  city  of 
David  a  most  unique  city  among  all  the  cities  of  Juda. 


St.  Matthezv,  II. 


4.    THE    FLIGHT    INTO    EGYPT    AND   THE    MASSACRE 
OF  THE  LITTLE  CHILDREN  AT  BETHLEHEM/^"^®. 

^^  Now  when  they  had  departed,  an  angel  of 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Joseph  in  a  dream,  saying : 
"Rise  and  take  the  child  and  his  mother  and  flee 
into  Eg}^pt,  and  live  there  till  I  tell  thee;  for 
Herod  is  about  to  seek  the  child  to  destroy  him." 
^*  He  [or :  Joseph]  rose,  and  took  the  child  and  his 
mother  by  night,  and  withdrew  into  Egypt ;  ^^  and 
was  there  until  the  death  of  Herod :  that  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  Lord  through  the 
prophet  might  be  fulfilled  :  "Out  of  Egypt  I  called 
my  Soil."  * 

^^  Then  Herod,  when  he  saw  that  he  had  been 
played  upon  by  the  wise  men,  was  exceedingly 
enraged,  and  sent  and  killed  all  the  male  children 
that  were  in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  its  surround- 
ings, from  two  years  old  and  under,  according  to 
the  time  which  he  had  ascertained  of  the  wise 
men.  ^^  Then  that  which  was  spoken  through 
Jeremiah  the  prophet  was  fulfilled : 


*  Here  the  Evangelist  quotes  Osee  ii  ^  according  to  the 
Hebrew   text,   and  not   according  to   the   LXX,   who   had 

translated  ef  Aiyvtttov  /oicTtKaAe<ra  ra  riKva  auroD* 


lo  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

^^  "A  voice  was  heard  in  Ram  ah, 
Weeping  and  great  mourning, 
Rachel  [zuas]  weeping  for  her  children; 
And  she  wotdd  not  be  comforted,  because  they 
are  not."  * 

5.    THE    RETURN    FROM    EGYPT    TO    NAZARETH/^"^^. 

"  But  when  Herod  was  dead,  an  angel  of  the 
Lord  appeared  in  a  dream  to  Joseph  in  Egypt, 
^°  saying :  "Rise,  and  take  the  child  and  his 
mother,  and  go  into  the  land  of  Israel ;  for  they 
who  sought  the  child's  life  are  dead."  ^^  And  he 
rose  and  took  the  child  and  his  mother,  and  came 
into  the  land  of  Israel.  ^"  But  having  heard  that 
Archelaus  was  reigning  over  Judaea  in  the  place 
of  his  father  Herod,  he  was  afraid  to  go  there; 
and  being  warned  in  a  dream,  he  withdrew  into 
the  country  of  Galilee,  ^^  and  came  and  dwelt  in 
a    city    called    Nazareth;    that    that    which    was 


*Jerem.  31  is.  According  to  the  Hebrew:  "A  voice  is 
heard  in  Raiiiah,  lamentation  and  hitter  weeping;  Rachel 
is  zveeping  for  her  children  and  she  refuseth  to  be  com- 
forted for  her  children,  because  they  are  not."  The  Evan- 
gelist seems  to  quote  by  heart  the  translation  of  the  LXX 
38  1^ :  "A  voice  was  heard  in  Ramah  [a  voice]  of  lamenta- 
tions, of  zveeping  and  of  groans:  Rachel  is  weeping  over 
her  children  and  she  refuses  to  be  quieted,  because  they  are 
not." 


St.  Matthczu,  II.  II 

spoken  through  the  prophets  might  be  fulfilled, 
that  he  should  [or :  since  he  was  to]  be  called  a 
Nazarene.* 


*  In  His  lifetime,  Jesus  was  commonly  called  the  Naza- 
rene o  Na^upoeos.  Matt.  2^^,  26  ^i;  Luke  18  ^^ ;  John  18  ^.^^ 
191^;  or  o  Na^opiji'ds,  Mark  i  ^*,  14^''^,  16^;  Luke  43*.  Evi- 
dently this  adjective  is  used  in  the  same  meaning  as  the 
periphrase  6  orrb  Na^ape'e,  the  one  from  Nazareth,  Matt.  21  ^^ ; 
John  i'*^;  Acts  10  ^s.  The  Palestinian  Christian  com- 
munity was  first  called  "the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes," 
Acts  24^.  How  far  this  designation  was  ironical  and  con- 
temptuous for  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  St.  John  intimates 
in  Nathaniel's  question  to  Philip :  "Can  any  good  thing 
come  out  of  Nazareth?"  John  i*^;  cf.  7 1*.  A  Christ 
from  Nazareth  of  Galilee !  As  to  the  Evangelist,  not  only 
he  is  not  ashamed  of  his  Nazarene  Christ,  he  even  remarks 
that  the  prophets,  particularly  Isaias,  had  foretold  concern- 
ing the  Messias  all  that  this  name  meant  on  the  lips  of  the 
Jews :  The  Christ  was  to  appear  humble,  ignored  and 
despised ;  now  Jesus  was  all  that :  and  this  is  why  the 
Jews  rejected  Him;  this  is  why,  too,  God  intended  He 
should  grow  and  live  at  Nazareth,  although  He  was  born 
at  Bethlehem.  Hence,  He  shall  be  called  Nazarene,  and 
this  name,  even  taken  by  itself,  will  express  the  lack  of 
worldly  prestige,  which  is,  according  to  the  prophets,  one  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  true  Messias.  Thus  the  words 
Na^uparos  (cA))e))o-€Tai  are  not  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  rather  a  personal  thought  of  the  Evangelist  about 
the  surname  given  to  Jesus  by  the  Jews,  His  contempo- 
raries. Cf.  Th.  Zahn,  Das  Evang.  des  Matthaeus,  pp. 
112-117. 


12  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

ST.  LUKE. 
I. 

1.  THE  prologue:  the  purpose  of  the  evan- 

gelist/"*. 

^  Since  many  have  undertaken  to  draw  up  a 
narrative  of  the  things  which  have  been  accom- 
pHshed  among  us,  ^  according  as  those,  who  from 
the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers 
of  the  word,  delivered  them  to  us ;  ^  it  seemed 
good  to  me  also,  having  carefully  traced  the 
course  of  all  things  from  the  beginning,  to  write 
them  to  you  in  their  order,  most  excellent  The- 
ophilus,  *  that  you  might  know  the  certainty  of 
those  things  [or:  teachings]  in  which  you  were 
instructed. 

2.  AN  ANGEL  APPEARS  TO  ZACHARY  TO  ANNOUNCE 
HIM  THE  BIRTH  OF  JOHN^  THE  PRECURSOR,^'^. 

°  There  was  in  the  days  of  Herod,  King  of 
Judaea,  a  certain  priest  named  Zachary,  of  the 
course  of  Abijah :  his  wife  was  of  the  daughters 
of  Aaron,  and  her  name  was  Elizabeth.  ®  They 
were  both  righteous  before  God,  walking  in  all 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 


St.  Luke,  I.  13 

without  blame ;  ^  and  they  had  no  child,  because 
Elizabeth  was  barren,  and  both  were  advanced 
in  years. 

*  Once,  while  he  was  officiating  as  priest  before 
God  in  the  order  of  his  course,  ^  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  priesthood  it  fell  to  his  lot  to  enter 
the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  and  burn  incense. 
^°  And  all  the  multitude  of  the  people  were  pray- 
ing outside  at  the  hour  of  incense.  "  And  there 
appeared  to  him  an  angel  of  the  Lord  standing 
at  the  right  side  of  the  altar  of  incense.  ^^  And 
Zachary  was  troubled  when  he  saw  him,  and  fear 
fell  upon  him.  ^^  But  the  angel  said  to  him :  "Fear 
not,  Zachary,  for  thy  prayer  is  heard,  and  thy 
wife  Elizabeth  shall  bear  thee  a  son,  and  thou 
shalt  call  his  name  John.  ^*  And  thou  shalt  have 
joy  and  gladness;  and  many  will  rejoice  at  his 
birth.  ^^  For  he  shall  be  great  in  the  sight  of  the 
Lord;  and  he  shall  drink  no  wine  nor  strong 
drink  *  and  he  shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
even  from  his  mother's  womb.  '^^  And  he  shall 
turn  many  of  the  children  of  Israel  to  the  Lord 
their  God.  ^'^  And  he  [himself]  shall  go  before 
his  face  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias,  to  turn 


*  These  are  the  very  words  used  in  the  Old  Testament 
for  describing  an  obligation  of  the  Nazarite  vow.  Cf.  Lev. 
10  9 ;  Numb.  6  ^ ;  Judg.  13  *•  7.  i* ;  7  Saml.  1  n. 


14  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children/^  and 
the  unbelieving  to  walk  in  the  wisdom  of  the  just; 
to  make  ready  for  the  Lord  a  people  prepared 
for  him."  ^^  And  Zachary  said  to  the  angel: 
"How  shall  I  know  this?  for  I  am  an  old  man, 
and  my  wife  is  advanced  in  years."  ^®  And  the 
angel  answered  and  said  to  him:  "I  am  Gabriel, 
who  stand  in  the  presence  of  God;  and  I  was 
sent  to  speak  to  thee,  and  to  bring  thee  these  good 
tidings.  ^'*  And  behold,  thou  shalt  be  silent  and 
not  able  to  speak,  until  the  day  that  these  things 
come  to  pass,  because  thou  didst  not  believe  my 
words  which  shall  be  fulfilled  in  their  time." 
^^  And  the  people  were  waiting  for  Zachary,  and 
wondered  while  he  tarried  in  the  sanctuary. 
^^  And  when  he  came  out,  he  could  not  speak 
to  them;  and  they  perceived  that  he  had  seen  a 
vision  in  the  temple;  and  he  continued  making 
signs  to  them,  and  remained  dumb.  ^^  And  when 
the  days  of  his  ministration  were  completed,  he 
departed  to  his  house. 


*  Malachy  3  23.  24 .  "Behold,  I  ivill  send  you  Elijah  the 
\f>rophet,  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  Jehovah 
come.  And  he  shall  turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the 
children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers." 
The  quotation  reproduces  literally  neither  the  Hebrew 
text,  nor  the  LXX,  but  it  comes  nearer  to  the  former. 


St.  Liikc,  I.  15 

^*  After  these  days  Elizabeth  his  wife  con- 
ceived; and  she  hid  herself  five  months,  saying: 
"  "Thus  has  the  Lord  dealt  with  me  in  the  days 
when  he  looked  upon  me  to  take  away  my  re- 
proach among  men." 

3.    THE  ANNOUNCEMENT  OF  THE  BIRTH   OF 
JESUS,^^"^^ 

^*  Now  in  the  sixth  month  the  angel  Gabriel 
was  sent  from  God  to  a  city  of  Galilee,  named 
Nazareth,  "  to  a  virgin  espoused  to  a  man  whose 
name  was  Joseph,  of  the  House  of  David;  and 
the  virgin's  name  was  Mary.  '*  And  [the  angel] 
came  in  to  her,  and  said :  "Hail,  full  of  grace ! 
the  Lord  is  with  thee:  [blessed  art  thou  among 
women]."*  ^^  But  she  was  much  troubled  at 
his  [or :  this]  language,!  and  was  pondering  what 
kind  of  salutation  this  might  be.    ^*^  And  the  angel 


*  As  the  Vulgate,  the  Received  Text  reads  here :  Blessed 
art  thou  among  women;  but  excellent  MSS.,  and  some, 
too,  among  the  oldest,  like  the  Vatic,  and  the  Sinait., 
leave  out  this  member,  which  is  found  the  same  in  the 
texts  and  in  the  versions  at  verse  42.  At  verse  28,  the 
words,  ev\oyniJ.€vn  av  iv  yvvai^iv,  Constitute  a  Western  and 
Syriac  reading. 

t  After  A,  the  Received  Text  has  iSov<ra,  which  the  Latins 
translated  by  cum  audisset  or  cum  vidisset. 


i6  The  CJiildJwod  of  Jesus  Christ. 

said  to  her :  "Fear  not,  Mary,  for  thou  hast  found 
grace  with  God.  ^^  And  behold,  thou  shalt  con- 
ceive in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and 
shalt  call  his  name  Jesus.  ^^  He  shall  be  great, 
and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most  High: 
and  the  Lord  God  will  give  him  the  throne  of 
David  his  father :  and  he  shall  reign  over  the 
house  of  Jacob  for  ever,  ^^  and  of  his  kingdom 
there  shall  be  no  end."  ^*  And  Mary  said  to  the 
angel :  "How  shall  this  be,  since  I  know  not 
man?"  ^^  And  the  angel  answered  and  said  to 
her:  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee:  and  therefore  that  [or:  the  holy  (one)] 
which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son 
of  God.  ®®  And  behold,  Elizabeth  thy  kinswoman, 
she,  too,  has  conceived  a  son  in  her  old  age :  and 
this  is  the  sixth  month  with  her  who  is  called 
barren.  ^^  For  no  word  from  God  shall  he  void  of 
pozver  (or:  nothing  is  impossible  to  God).''^ 
^^  And  Mary  said :  "Behold,  the  handmaid  of  the 
Lord:  be  it  done  to  me  according  to  thy  word." 
And  the  angel  departed  from  her. 


*  In  a  similar  circumstance,  Abraham  had  been  told  re- 
garding Sara:  "Is  anything  too  wonderful  for  Yahweh?" 

Mj)   aSwaTTiaei   napa  to!  ©ew  prjtia  ',    LXX,   Gen.    lo    . 


St.  Luke,  I.  ly 

4.    MARY  VISITS  ELIZABETH  ;  THE  Magnificat,  ^^'^^. 

^^  In  those  days  Mary  rose  and  made  a  hasty 
journey  into  the  hill-country,  to  a  city  of  Judah, 
*°  and  entered  Zachary's  house,  and  saluted  Eliza- 
beth. *^  And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Elizabeth 
heard  the  salutation  of  INIary,  the  babe  leaped  in 
her  womb,  and  Elizabeth  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  *"  and  she  raised  her  voice  with  a  loud 
cry,  and  said :  "Blessed  art  thou  among  women, 
and  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb.  "  And 
whence  is  this  to  me,  that  the  mother  of  my  Lord 
should  come  to  me  ?  **  For  lo,  when  the  voice 
of  thy  salutation  sounded  in  my  ears,  the  babe 
leaped  in  my  womb  for  joy.  *^  And  blessed  is 
she  who  believed;  for  there  shall  be  a  fulfillment 
of  the  things  which  have  been  spoken  to  her  by 
the  Lord."  *     "  And  Mary  said :  f 


*  Attempts  have  been  made  to  give  to  the  greeting  of 
Elizabeth  the  rhythmical  form,  noticed  in  the  other  canti- 
cles of  this  first  chapter: 

Blessed  art  thou  among  women, 

And  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb. 

And  whence  is  this  to  me, 

That  the  mother  of  my  Lord  should  come  to  me? 

For  lo,  when  the  voice  of  thy  salutation  sounded  in 
my  ears, 

The  babe  leaped  in  my  womb  for  joy. 


1 8  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"My  soul  magnifies  the  Lord; 

*^  And  my  spirit  rejoiced  [or:  rejoices]   in  God, 

my  Savior, 
*®  Because  he  looked  upon  the  lowliness  of  his 

handmaid : 
For  behold,  from  henceforth  all  generations  shall 

call  me  blessed. 


And  blessed  is  she  who  believed;  for  the  things  shall 
be  fulfilled, 

Which  have  been  spoken  to  her  by  the  Lord. 

t  The  Magnificat  is  ascribed  to  Elizabeth  in  three  Latin 
MSS.  of  the  prehieronymian  version:  a  (verc),  h  (veron.), 
/  (rhed.)  ;  in  the  De  Psalmodice  Bono,  chapter  ix,  xi,  of  St. 
Niceta  of  Remesiana.  Origen,  or  perhaps  his  translator 
St.  Jerome,  knows  that  reading  which,  however,  he  does  not 
adopt,  Homil.  VII  in  Luc.  Some  have  endeavored,  unsuc- 
cessfully however,  to  add  to  these  testimonies  that  of  St. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  xvii,  6,  7.  Cf.  The  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies,  1906,  pp.  449-453. — The  authority  of 
these  witnesses  cannot  prevail  against  that  of  most  of  the 
MSS.  (both  of  texts  and  of  versions)  and  most  of  the 
Fathers,  especially  St.  Irenaeus,  P.  G.,  vii,  873  and  991 
(except  one  MS.);  Origen,  P.  G.,  xiii,  1819;  Tertullian, 
P.  L.,  ii,  694;  St.  Ambrose,  P.  L.,  xv,  1562;  St.  Jerome, 
P.  L.,  xxix,  611;  St.  Augustine,  P.  L.,  xxxiv,  1081,  and 
elsewhere.  As  to  the  considerations  drawn  from  internal 
evidences,  they  are  still  more  favorable  to  the  reading  of 
the  Received  Text.  Cf.  P.  Ladeuze,  in  Revue  d'Hist. 
Eccles.,  1903,  p.  623 ;  J.  H.  Bernard,  in  The  Expositor, 
1907,  p.  193- 


St.  Luke,  I.  19 

*^  For  he  that  is  mighty  did  great  things  to  me : 

And  holy  is  his  name. 

^°  And  his  mercy  is  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion 

On  those  who  fear  him. 

^^  He  has  shown  might  with  his  arm; 

He  has  scattered  the  proud  in  the  imagination  of 
their  heart. 

^^  He  has  put  down  princes  from  their  throne, 

And  has  exalted  the  lowly. 

^^  The  hungry  he  has  filled  with  good  things, 

And  the  rich  he  has  sent  empty  away. 

°*  He  has  received  Israel  his  servant, 

That  he  might  remember  mercy, 

^^  (As  he  spoke  to  our  fathers), 

Toward  Abraham  and  his  seed  for  ever."  * 

^^  And  Mary  remained  with  her  about  three 
months,  and  returned  to  her  house. 


*  This  canticle  which  is  made  up  of  reminiscences  from 
the  Psahns  and  from  the  Prophets,  recalls  especially  the 
canticle  of  Anna,  Samuel's  mother,  /  Sam.  2  i"io.  It  may- 
be divided  into  three  strophes:  (o)  46b-50.  Cf.  /  Sam. 
2  1,  I  11 ;  Gett.  30  13  ;  Dent.  10  21.  (b)  51-53.  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxxix, 
11;  Job,  12",  5";  /  Sam.  2  7.  (c)  54-55.  Cf.  Is.  418; 
Ps.  98  3 ;  Mich.  7  20  ;  //  Sam.  22  ^i. 


20  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

5.  THE  BIRTH   OF  JOHN;  THE  Beuedictiis,   ""**'. 

^'  Now  Elizabeth's  time  for  her  deHvery  was 
completed ;  and  she  brought  forth  a  son.  ^^  And 
her  neighbors  and  her  relatives  heard  that  the 
Lord  had  shown  his  great  mercy  toward  her; 
and  they  rejoiced  with  her.  ^^  And  on  the  eighth 
day  they  came  to  circumcise  the  child,  and  they 
were  for  calling  him  Zachary,  after  the  name  of 
his  father.  ®°  And  his  mother  answered :  "Not 
so;  but  he  shall  be  called  John."  ®^  They  said  to 
her :  "There  is  none  of  your  kindred  who  is  called 
by  this  name."  ^^  So  they  made  signs  to  his 
father,  what  he  would  have  him  called;  ^^  and 
demanding  a  writing-tablet  he  [or:  Zachary] 
wrote:  "His  name  is  John:"  and  they  all  won- 
dered. ^*  And  his  mouth  was  opened  immediately, 
and  his  tongue  [loosed],  and  he  spoke,  blessing 
God.  ^^  And  fear  came  upon  all  their  neighbors : 
and  all  these  things  were  noised  abroad  over  all 
the  hill-country  of  Judrea :  ®^  and  all  who  heard 
them  laid  them  up  in  their  heart,  saying:  "What 
then  will  this  child  be?"  for  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  v^'as  with  him.  ®^  And  his  father  Zachary 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  prophesied, 
saying : 


St.  Luke,  I.  21 

®*  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ; 

For  he  has  visited  and  wrought  redemption  for 

his  people, 
®®  And  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us 

In  the  house  of  his  servant  David 
^°  (As  he  spoke  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets 

who  have  been  since  the  world  began), 
^^  Salvation  from  our  enemies, 
And  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us; 
^^  To  show  mercy  to  our  fathers 
And  to  remember  his  holy  covenant; 
^^  [according  to]  The  oath  which  he  swore  to  our 

father  Abraham,  that  he  would  grant  us 
^*  That  we  being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of 

our  enemies 
Should  serve  him  without  fear, 
"  In  holiness  and   righteousness  before  him  all 

our  days. 
^^  And  thou,  child,  shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of 

the  Most  High 
For  thou  shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to 

prepare  his  ways ; 
"  To  give  knowledge  of  salvation  to  his  people 
In  the  remission  of  their  sins, 
"  Through  the  tender  mercy  of  our  God, 


22  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Whereby  [as]  the  Dayspring  from  on  high  [he] 

has  visited  us,* 
^^  To  shine  upon  those  who  sit  in  darkness  and 

in  the  shade  of  death; 
To  guide  our  feet  into  the  way  of  peace."  f 

^°  And  the  child  grew,  and  became  strong  in 
spirit,  and  was  in  the  deserts  till  the  day  of  his 
manifestation  to  Israel. 

11. 

6.    THE  BIRTH   OF  JESUS  IN  BETHLEHEM,  ^"^°, 

^  Now  it  fell  out  in  those  days,  that  a  decree 
went  out  from  Csesar  Augustus,  [commanding] 
that  all  the  world  should  be  enrolled.  "  This  was 
the  first  enrolment  [or:  This  first  enrolment  was] 


*  'E7ri<rK«i|/eTai  in  KB,  Syr.,  Arm.,  Goth.,  Boh.  and  L  (thi.s 
last  with  the  spelling  infa-K4<paiTai)  :  however  Tischendorf 
and  Godet  prefer  sTreo-Kei/zoTo,  which  is  the  reading  followed 
by  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

t  The  Benedictus  is  naturally  divided  into  two  chief 
parts.  The  first,  from  verse  68  to  verse  75,  may  be  sub- 
divided into  three  strophes:  (0)  68,  69;  (6)  70,  71;  (c) 
72-75.  The  second  part,  from  verse  76  to  verse  79,  has 
only  two  strophes:  (a)  76,  77;  (b)  78,  79.  Cf.  A.  Plum- 
MERj  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  p.  39. 


St.  Luke,  II.  23 

made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria.* 
^  All  went  to  enroll  themselves,  every  one  to  his 
own  city ;  *  and  Joseph  also  went  up  from  Galilee, 
from  the  city  of  Nazareth,  [to  go]  into  Judaea, 
to  the  city  of  David,  which  is  called  Bethlehem 
(because  he  was  of  the  house  and  family  of 
David), '  to  enroll  himself  with  Mary  his  espoused 
wife,  who  was  with  child.  ®  And  it  came  to  pass, 
while  they  were  there,  that  the  days  were  com- 
pleted for  her  delivery,  ^  and  she  brought  forth 
her  first-born  son,  and  wrapped  him  in  swathing- 


*  Various  readings  of  verse  2  :  B,  followed  by  81,  131,  203, 

OUT7J  aiTOypa<j>r)  ffpoinj  eyei'tTO  ;  X,  airriv  airoypa^riv  iyevtTO  ;  D,  f  ollowed 
by  the  Latin  translation  of  Origen,  aiiTrj  iyivtro  anoypaifiri  npiirr). 
A,    C^,    L,    R,  H,  avr>)  17  anoypa<f>ri  irpuiTi)  eytvero. 

By  reading  out^  with  the  soft  accent,  and  understanding 
a-iroypa4>ifi  of  the  levying  itself  of  the  tax,  distinct  from  the 
census,  which  had  taken  place  under  Herod,  some  have 
attempted  to  translate :  "The  levying  of  the  tax  it- 
self (avrrt)  took  placc,  for  the  first  time  (irpuT»)  ),  not  before 
the  rule  of  Quirinius."  But  that  reading  is  rather  arbi- 
trary, and  the  translation  is  still  more  so.  The  best  is 
to  abide  by  the  Received  Text :  ovtt)  ri  diroYpa<^>)  n-pioTij  iyevtro, 
and  translate :  "This  enrolment,  [zvhich  was'l  the  first,  was 
made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria."  The  fre- 
quent recurrence  of  the  name  Quirinius  (Kvplvo^)  among 
the  Latins  has  led  the  copyists  to  introduce  into  the  Latin 
versions  the  form  Cyrinus  (or  Quirinus).  B  has  KvptCvov 
for  the  same  reason.  Undoubtedly  the  right  spelling  is 
either  Kvpriviot  or  Kvpivioi. 

4 


24  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

bands;  and  she  laid  him  in  a  manger,  because 
there  was  no  room  for  them  in  the  inn. 

^  There  were  shepherds  in  the  same  country, 
dwelHng  out  in  the  fields,  and  keeping  the  night- 
watches  over  their  flock.  ^  And  lo,  an  angel  of 
the  Lord  stood  by  them,  and  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  shone  round  about  them;  and  they  were 
sorely  afraid.  ^^  And  the  angel  said  to  them : 
"Fear  not,  for  behold,  I  bring  you  good  tidings 
of  great  joy  which  shall  be  to  all  the  people;  "  for 
there  is  born  to  you  to-day  in  the  city  of  David 
a  Savior,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord.  ^^  And  this 
is  the  sign  to  you;  you  will  find  a  babe  wrapped 
in  swathing-bands,  and  lying  in  a  manger." 
^^  And  suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel  a  multi- 
tude of  the  heavenly  host  praising  God,  and  say- 
ing: 

^*  "Glory  to  God  in  the  highest, 
And  on  earth  peace  to  men  in  whom  he  is  well 
pleased."  * 


*  EvSoKias  is  found  in  X«  A  B  D,  Latt.  (Vet.  Vulg.) 
Goth.  Iren.  (lat.)  Origen  (lat.)  and  the  hymn  Gloria  in 
excehis.  mSoxCa  is  read  in  LP  taAe,  etc.,  Syr.  (Pesch.  Sin. 
Harcl.)  Boh.  Arm.  ^th.  Orig.  Euseb.  Bas.  Greg.-Naz.  Cyr.- 
Jerus.  Did.  Epiph.  Cyr.-Alex.  and  the  Greek  text  of  the 
Gloria  in  excehis.  Should  we  abide  only  by  the  data  of 
internal  evidence,  we  could  hardly  decide  for  either  read- 
ing;   but    the    testimony    of    the    texts,    of    the    versions 


St.  Luke,  II.  25 

^^  When  the  angels  departed  from  them  into 
heaven,  the  shepherds  said  to  one  another :  "Let 
us  go  over  to  Bethlehem,  and  see  this  thing  that 
is  come  to  pass,  which  the  Lord  has  shown  us." 
^^  And  they  came  with  haste,  and  found  Mary 
and  Joseph,  and  the  babe  lying  in  the  manger. 
^^  When  they  saw  it,  they  made  known  the  word 
which  had  been  spoken  to  them  about  this  [little] 
child.*     ^^  And  all  who  heard  marveled  at  the 

and  of  the  Fathers  seems  clearly  to  favor  the  reading 
euSoKias,  which  is  adopted,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in  most 
modern  critical  editions.  With  evSoxCa  words  may  be  cut 
as  follows : 

Glory  to   God  in  the   highest 

And  on  earth,  Peace ; 

To  men,  divine  Good  will. 
This  is,  in  fact  the  stichometry  of  several  MSS.  With 
euSoKc'os  the  most  acceptable,  as  well  as  the  most  common 
punctuation  is  the  one  given  in  the  text;  how- 
ever Hort  suggests  another  construction :  Glory  to  God 
in  the  highest  and  on  earth,  Peace  to  men  [the  objects] 
of  divine  good-will.  At  all  events,  whether  we  read 
eirSoict'as  OT  euSoKi'a  it  is  no  Qucstion  of  men's,  but  of  God's 
good  will,  of  which  we  have  just  received  an  unparalleled 
token  in  the  birth  of  Jesus  the  Savior.  Cf.  Westcott  and 
Hort,  The  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  Intro- 
duction, Appendix,  pp.  52-56. 

*  The  Vulgate  translates  eV'^pio-a"  by  cognoverunt.  True, 
yviapiim  may  have  that  meaning  (cf.  Philip,  i  22)  ;  but  the 
context,  vis.,  the  following  number,  calls  here  for  the 
meaning  of  notuni  facere,  as  the  Vulgate  itself  translates 
at  verse  15. 


26  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

things  which  were  told  them  by  the  shepherds. 
"  But  Mary  kept  all  these  words,  [or :  things] 
pondering  them  in  her  heart.  ^°  And  the  shep- 
herds returned,  glorifying  and  praising  God  for 
all  the  things  which  they  had  heard  and  seen,  as 
it  was  told  them. 

7.    THE    CHILD    IS    CIRCUMCISED,    AND    PRESENTED 
IN   THE  TEMPLE/^'^*. 

^^  And  when  eight  days  were  completed  for 
circumcising  the  child  his  name  was  called  Jesus, 
which  was  so-called  by  the  angel  before  he  was 
conceived  in  the  womb  [of  his  Mother]. 

^^  When  the  days  of  their  [or :  the]  purifica- 
tion according  to  the  law  of  Moses  were  com- 
pleted, they  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,  to  present 
him  to  the  Lord  ^^  (as  it  is  written  in  the  law 
of  the  Lord:  "Every  male  that  opens  the  womb 
shall  be  called  holy  to  the  Lord"),*  ^*  and  to 
offer  a  sacrifice,  according  to  what  is  said  in  the 
law  of  the  Lord,  a  pair  of  turtle-doves,  or  two 


*  This  is  not  a  quotation  strictly  so  called,  but  the  state- 
ment of  a  most  certainly  Mosaic  prescription.  Cf.  Exod. 
13  2>  i2_  'Yhe  text  of  Genesis  accounts  for  the  words  n-av 
apaev,  which  are  often  mentioned  in  it,  in  connection  with 
circumcision. 


St.  Luke,  II.  27 

young  pigeons.*  ^^  Now  there  was  a  man  in 
Jerusalem,  whose  name  was  Simeon;  and  this 
man  was  just  and  devout,  looking  for  the  Con- 
solation of  Israel ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  was  upon 
him.  "^  It  had  been  revealed  to  him  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  he  should  not  see  death,  before  he 
had  seen  the  Lord's  Christ.  "  And  he  came  in 
the  spirit  into  the  temple;  and  when  his  parents 
brought  in  the  child  Jesus,  that  they  might  do 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  law  in  his  regard, 
^^  then  he  received  him  into  his  arms,  and  blessed 
God,  and  said : 

^®  "Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart,  O  Lord, 

According  to  thy  word,  in  peace ; 

^°  For  my  eyes  have  seen  thy  Salvation, 

^^  Which  thou  hast  prepared  before  the  face  of 

all  peoples; 
^^  A  light  for  revelation  to  the  Gentiles, 
And  the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel." 

^^  And  his  father  and  mother  were  marveling 
at  the  things  which  were  spoken  about  him. 
^*  And  Simeon  blessed  them,  and  said  to  Mary 
his  mother :  "Behold,  this  [child]  is  set  for  the 
falling  and  rising  of  many  in  Israel,  and  as  a 
standard  which  shall  be  opposed :  ^^  and  a  sword 

*  Levit.  12  8. 


28  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

shall  pierce  through  thy  own  soul,  that  thoughts 
out  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed."  ^^  And 
there  was  one  Anna,  a  prophetess,  the  daughter 
of  Phanuel,  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (she  was  of 
great  age,  and  lived  with  a  husband  seven  years 
from  her  virginity,  ^^  and  had  been  a  widow  for 
eighty- four  years),  who  used  not  to  depart  from 
the  temple,  worshipping  with  fastings  and  sup- 
plications night  and  day.  ^®  And  coming  up  at 
that  very  hour  she  gave  thanks  to  the  Lord,  and 
spoke  of  him  to  all  who  were  looking  for  the  re- 
demption of  Jerusalem.* 

8.    RETURN    TO    NAZARETH  ;    JESUS    IS    LOST    AND 
FOUND   IN   THE  TEMPLE/^"". 

^®  And  when  they  had  performed  all  the  things 
that  were  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  Lord, 
they  [or:  Joseph  and  Mary]  returned  into  Galilee, 
to  their  own  city  Nazareth.  *°  And  the  child 
grew,  and  became  strong,  full  of  wisdom;  and  the 
grace  of  God  was  upon  him. 


*  All  agree  that  the  authentic  text  reads  Aurpwo-n'  "lepouaax^/a ; 
the  substitution  of  Israel  for  Jerusalem  (which  passed 
into  the  Clem.  Vulg.)  may  probably  be  accounted  for  by 
those  many  O.  T.  passages,  in  which  reference  is  often 
made  to  the  "redemption  of  Israel."  The  reading  Avrpwo-n' 
iv  'lepova-aKriii  IS  Hkewisc  an  alteration,  in  spite  of  the  testi- 
mony of  A  D,  etc. 


St.  Luke,  II.  29 

*^  Now  his  parents  used  to  journey  every  year 
to  Jerusalem,  at  the  feast  of  the  Passover. 
*^  When  he  was  twelve  years  old,  they  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
feast ;  *^  and  when  they  had  completed  the  days 
[of  the  solemnity],  as  they  were  returning,  the 
boy  Jesus  tarried  behind  in  Jerusalem,  and  his 
parents  knew  it  not ;  **  but  supposing  him  to  be 
in  the  caravan,  they  went  a  day's  journey,  and 
were  seeking  him  among  their  relatives  and  ac- 
quaintances ;  "  and  not  finding  him  they  returned 
to  Jerusalem,  looking  for  him.  *''  And  after  three 
days  they  found  him  in  the  temple,  sitting  in  the 
midst  of  the  doctors  [of  the  law],  both  hearing 
them,  and  asking  them  questions.  *'^  All  who 
heard  him  were  amazed  at  his  understanding  and 
his  answers.  **  And  when  they  [or :  his  parents] 
saw  him,  they  were  astonished;  and  his  mother 
said  to  him:  "Son,  why  have  you  done  so  to  us? 
see,  your  father  and  I  have  sought  you  sorrow- 
ing." *®  And  he  said  to  them :  "How  is  it  that 
you  sought  me  ?  did  you  not  know  that  I  must 
be  about  my  Father's  business  ?"  ^°  And  they 
did  not  understand  the  word  which  he  spoke  to 
them. 

^^  And  he  went  down  with  them,  and  came  to 
Nazareth;  and  he  was  subject  to  them.    And  his 


30  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

mother  kept  all  these  things  in  her  heart.  ^^  And 
Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  and  age,  and  in  grace 
with  God  and  men. 


III. 

9.    THE  GENEALOGY  OF  JESUS^  "^'^^. 

^^  And  Jesus  himself,  when  he  began  [to  teach], 
was  about  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was 
supposed)  *  the  son  of  Joseph,  the  son  of  Heli, 


*  Owing  to  the  difiiiculty  of  the  text,  several  attempts  to 
smooth  the  construction  have  been  made.  ><BL.Or., 
Euseb.,  Athan.,  Epiph.,  and  others  read  s>v  v\.6^,  <is  cro/oti^ero, 
whilst  AxrAAn  and  most  ancient  versions,  including  the 
Vulgate,  have  read  wv  ws  ivoixiitTo  ulos.  These  tvi^o  readings, 
with  intermediary  variations,  are  found  in  prehieronymian 
Latin  versions.  Cf.  J.  Wordsworth,  Nov.  Test.  D.  N. 
J.  C,  latine    .    .    .     1893,  P-  2^^- 

The  incidental  phrase  is  e^o/m'^eTo,  wf  piitahatur,  is  a  paren- 
thesis. All  the  proper  names  are  here  in  the  genitive,  as 
well  as  that  of  Joseph.  ToO  is  not  an  article  defining  the 
name  that  follows,  but  a  pronoun  related  to  the  preceding 
name ;  it  stands  for  vIoO  according  to  the  well-known 
Hellenic  idiom  6  <i>iAi7rirou,  that  of  Philip,  i.  e.,  Alexander : 
e,  f  rightly  translated  toC  by  filii. 

Moreover,  there  are  in  classical  authors  genealogies  drawn 
up  absolutely  like  that  in  St.  Luke.  Cf.  Herodotus, 
viii,  131. 

Those  scholars  who  hold  that  in  St.  Luke  we  have  the 
Blessed  Virgin's  genealogy  suggest  the  following  con- 
struction :  "Jesus   .   .   .   being  the  son  (as  w^as  supposed  of 


St.  Luke,  III,  ''-'\  31 

the  son  of  Matthat,  "*  the  son  of  Levi,  the  son 
of  Melchi,  the  son  of  Jannai,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
^^  the  son  of  Mattathiah,  the  son  of  Amos,  the 
son  of  Nahum,  the  son  of  EsH,  the  son  of  Naggai, 
^^  the  son  of  Mahath,  the  son  of  Mattathiah,  the 
son  of  Semei,  the  son  of  Joseph,  the  son  of  Juda, 
"the  son  of  Joanna  [or:  Joanan],  the  son  of 
Resa,*  the  son  of  Zerubbabel, 


Joseph,  but  in  reality)  of  Heli  .  .  ."  For  them,  toD 
becomes  before  each  name,  all  through  the  genealogy,  an 
article  depending  immediately  on  the  ulos  found  in  verse 
23.  Cf.  Bacuez,  Man.  Bibl.,  (new  edit,  by  Brassac)  Vol. 
Ill,  p.  293.  But  this  construction  is  rather  strained,  and 
unusual  in  genealogies,  in  which  each  term  is  generally 
connected  with  the  preceding  one.  If  it  is  suggested  to 
make  the  first  toO  before  -HKei  an  article,  whilst  before  the 
other  nouns  it  would  be  a  pronoun,  we  have  'HAei  toC  MarfloT, 
Heli,  that  of  Matthat,  a  construction  which  cannot  be 
grammatically  upheld.  According  to  Kruger,  Griech. 
Sprachlehre,  ii,  §47,  5,  3,  KOpos  toC  Ka/^i^vVov  is  a  solecism. 

*Rhesa,  who  appears  in  Luke,  but  neither  in  Matthew, 
nor  in  I  Chron.,  [Paralipom.]  is  probably  not  a  name  at 
all,  but  a  title,  which  some  Jewish  copyist  mistook  for  a 
name.  "Zerubbabel  Rhesa,"  or  "Zerubbabel  the  Prince" 
has  been  made  into  "Zerubbabel  (begot)  Rhesa."  A. 
Plummer,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  p.  104.  This 
is  a  mere  conjecture,  which  does  not  rest  upon  any  positive 
textual  datum.  At  any  rate,  the  name  Rhesa  is  most 
appropriate  in  St.  Luke's  text,  from  which  it  can  be  re- 
moved, only  at  the  expense  of  the  numerical  harmony 
of  the  septenaries,  according  to  which  the  genealogy  seems 


2^2  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  son  of  Salathiel,  the  son  of  Neri,  ^*  the  son 
of  Melchi,  the  son  of  Adcli,  the  son  of  Cosam, 
the  son  of  Ehnadam,  the  son  of  Er,  ^^  the  son  of 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Ehezer,  the  son  of  Jorim,  the 
son  of  Matthat,  the  son  of  Levi,  ^°  the  son  of 
Simeon,  the  son  of  Judah,  the  son  of  Joseph,  the 
son  of  Jonam,  the  son  of  Ehakim,  ^^  the  son  of 
Melea,  the  son  of  Menna,  the  son  of  Mattatha, 
the  son  of  Nathan, 

the  son  of  David,  ^"  the  son  of  Jesse,  the  son  of 
Obed,  the  son  of  Boaz,  the  son  of  Sahiion,  the 
son  of  Nahshon,  ^^  the  son  of  Amminadab,  the 
son  of  Ram  [or:  Oram],  the  son  of  Hesron,  the 
son  of  Peres,  the  son  of  Judah,  ^*  the  son  of 
Jacob,  the  son  of  Isaac,  the  son  of  Abraham, 
the  son  of  Terah,  the  son  of  Nahor,  ^^  the  son 
of  Sarug,  the  son  of  Reu  [or:  Ragan],  the  son 
of  Peleg  [or:  Phalech],  the  son  of  Heber,  the 
son  of   Shelah,   ^^  the  son  of  Cainan,*  the  son 

framed  and  drawn  up.  Cf.  F.  Prat,  at  the  word  Genea- 
logies, in  ViGOUROUX,  Diet,  de  la  Bible.  In  the  translation, 
the  genealogy  has  been  divided  into  four  series  of  three 
septenaries  each,  excepting  the  third  series  which  counts 
only  two  septenaries. 

*  In  the  LXX,  Gen.  102*,  n  12^  and  probably,  too,  I  Par. 
I  ^^,  Cainan  is  the  father  of  Shelah,  and  the  son  of 
Arphaxad :  but  he  does  not  appear  in  the  Hebrew  text. 
In  St.   Luke,  D  alone  leaves  him  out;    Ksr   have    KaiVafi 


St.  Luke,  III,  ''-'\  33 

of  Arphaxad,  the  son  of  Shem,  the  son  of  Noah, 
the  son  of  Lamech,  ^^  the  son  of  Methuselah,  the 
son  of  Enoch,  the  son  of  Jared,  the  son  of 
Mahalaleel,  the  son  of  Cainan,  ^^  the  son  of  Enos, 
the  son  of  Seth,  the  son  of  Adam,  the  son  of 
God. 

instead  of  KaiVa^',  which  is  the  more  common  spelling. 
Here,  again,  the  name  Cainan  is  called  for  by  the  numer- 
ical harmony  of  the  genealogy;  with  it,  we  obtain  three 
septenaries  of  generations  between  Thare  and  God. 


THE    CHILDHOOD    OF    JESUS    CHRIST 

ACCORDING  TO  THE  CANONICAL 

GOSPELS. 

CHAPTER  I. 

GENERAL  ATTACK  AND  DEFENCE. 

The  critics  who  are  opposed  to  our  position 
first  attack  the  character  of  the  events  related  in 
the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy.  Angelic  apparitions, 
Magi  coming  from  the  East  amidst  wonderful 
circumstances,  King  Herod  ordering  to  murder 
at  Bethlehem  all  the  children  of  two  years  and 
under,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  last  and  chiefly,  a 
Virgin-Mother, — all  these  are  as  many  features 
that  smack  most  strongly  of  legend  and  would  be 
most  appropriate  in  the  apocryphal  Gospels. 

And,  then,  how  did  the  origin  and  childhood 
of  Jesus  come  to  be  known?  At  a  time  when 
public  attention  had  not  as  yet  fastened  upon 
them,  when  His  relatives  themselves  were  far 
from  surmising  the  destiny  in  store  for  the  car- 
penter's son,  His  lonesome  and  obscure  life  was 
being  spent  at  Nazareth.  When  the  first  and 
third  Evangelists  wrote,  about  the  year  70,  there 
must  have  been  left  but  few  witnesses  of  the 
childhood  of  Jesus.  The  persons  introduced  by 
Luke — Zachary,  Elizabeth,  Joseph,  Simeon,  Anna 


36  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

— had  been  gone   for  a  long  while.     Whether 
Mary  herself  was  still  alive  can  well  be  doubted. 

Besides  these  surmises,  there  are  positive  data 
that  tend  to  throw  some  discredit  on  the  his- 
torical authority  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy. 
Here  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  disagree  from 
beginning  to  end;  there  are  found  in  their  text 
incoherencies  that  can  be  fully  accounted  for  only 
by  successive  and  biased  after-touches.  St. 
Luke's  artificial  method,  especially  in  his  Canti- 
cles, leaves  the  impression  that  he  meant  to  write 
a  religious  poem  rather  than  a  page  of  history. 

In  fine,  by  comparing  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy 
with  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  the  reader 
becomes  firmly  convinced  that  all  that  narrative, 
the  episode  of  the  Virgin-Birth  included,  does  not 
represent  a  primitive  tradition.  Hence  do  we 
find  it  absent  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and 
from  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  the  genuine  type 
of  the  Apostolic  preaching.  Here  we  come  across 
a  later  product  of  the  belief,  first  rather  vague, 
in  Christ's  divine  origin.  That  creation  of  re- 
ligious sentiment  Strauss  called  myth,  because 
in  his  mind  it  was  the  setting  forth  of  an  idea 
under  the  shape  of  a  seemingly  historical  fact. 
His  successors  are  inclined,  rather,  to  speak  of 
a  reaction  of  faith  upon  history;  but,  after  all, 


General  Attack  and  Defence.  37 

this  is  but  another  expression  of  the  same  thought. 
At  all  events,  that  reaction,  at  least  as  far  as  what 
pertains  to  the  Virgin-Birth,  did  not  simply  adorn 
the  narrative;  it  created  that  narrative.  Whilst 
Strauss  frankly  confessed  that  his  first  and  chief 
motive  for  denying  the  historical  character  of 
those  texts  was  the  supernatural  character  they 
have  and  profess  to  have,*  nowadays  men  are 
fond  of  appealing  exclusively  to  textual  and  to 
historical  criticism. f 


*  Cf.  Life  of  Jesus,  critically  examined,  London,  1892, 
(translated  by  George  Eliot),  pp.  39-87. 

t  HouTiN,  La  Question  biblique  au  XX^"^e  siecle,  1906,  p. 
241,  writes  in  this  connection  :  "Heterodox  critics  discard  that 
interpretation,  not  because  they  deny  the  possibility  of  a 
more  or  less  extraordinary  fact  of  'parthenogenesis,'  or  even 
the  possibility  of  one  miracle,  but  because  in  the  written 
accounts  of  the  testimonies  they  find  marks  of  after-touches, 
which  do  away  altogether  with  the  value  of  those  accounts, 
or  even  make  them  formally  contradict  the  designs  of  the 
correctors  themselves."  This  is  nothing  but  over-anxiety 
of  impartiality  towards  unbelieving  critics,  especially  in  a 
book  from  which  any  sympathy  for  Catholics  seems  unmer- 
cifully and  wilfully  excluded.  Personally,  I  feel  convinced 
that  the  a  priori  denial  of  the  supernatural  has  influenced, 
far  more  than  is  confessed,  textual  and  chiefly  historical 
criticism.  This  I  will  show  when  the  opportunity  comes. 
Besides,  that  proceeding  perfectly  agrees  with  the  historical 
method,  as  understood  by  teachers  whose  word  at  the  Sor- 
bonne  is  authority.  (Cf.  Langlois  &  Seignobos,  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Study  of  History,  English  translation,  pp.  205- 
208.) 


38  The  Childhood  of  Jestis  Christ. 

To  this  wholesale  indictment,  the  cogency  of 
which  we  have  lessened  in  no  way,  orthodox  and 
even  merely  conservative  critics  have  not  failed 
to  give  replies. 
./  The  narratives  of  the  Infancy  form  a  whole 
together  with  the  remaining  parts  of  the  Gospels, 
and  cannot  be  separated  from  them:  they  must 
share  in  the  general  credit  enjoyed  especially  now 
by  the  Gospel  history.  Nowhere  do  the  Evangel- 
ists hint  that  for  them  this  portion  of  their  narra- 
tive has  only  a  problematic  value.  Nay,  we  may 
believe  that  St.  Luke's  purpose — a  purpose  ex- 
plicitly stated — of  taking  up  again  everything 
from  the  very  beginning  with  order  and  accuracy, 
had  for  its  chief  object  those  facts  which  he  is  the 
only  one  to  relate. 

Thus,  if  we  are  willing  to  give  to  that  part  of 
the  canonical  text  the  name  of  "Gospel  of  the 
Infancy,"  it  is  not  because  we  look  upon  it  as 
less  valuable  than  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  history, 
but  merely  because,  on  one  hand,  that  appellation 
is  of  ready  use,  and,  on  the  other,  because  it 
describes  accurately  the  contents  of  the  passages 
of  which  we  are  speaking. 

That  narrative  is  made  up,  it  is  true,  of  super- 
natural interventions,  but  are  they  more  numer- 
ous here  than  in  the  other  parts  of  the  Gospels? 


General  Attack  and  Defence.  39 

The  history  of  thirty  years  has  been  gathered 
up  and  compressed,  as  it  were,  into  two  pages, 
and  it  is  but  natural  to  surmise  that  the  most 
wonderful  events  alone  have  been  retained. 

Apparitions  of  Angels  and  of  personages  who 
had  passed  away  many  years  before  are  to  be 
found  in  the  very  midst  of  the  narratives  of  the 
public  life,  and  even  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
which  many  are  fond  of  styling  the  most  his- 
torical book  of  the  New  Testament.  After  all, 
is  the  star  of  the  Magi  a  more  wonderful  phe- 
nomenon than  the  voices  that  came  from  Heaven 
to  glorify  the  Christ,  one  of  which  impressed 
the  hearers  in  such  different  ways  that  some 
said :  "It  has  thundered" ;  others  said :  "An  Angel 
has  spoken  to  him"  ?  *  Miracles,  like  that  of  the 
swine  of  Gerasa,  and  that  of  the  half-shekel  found 
by  St.  Peter  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish,  have  at  least 
as  great  a  taste  of  legend  as  the  wonders  with 
which  the  cradle  of  Jesus  was  surrounded. 

These  comparisons,  it  is  true,  have  only  the 
strength  of  arguments  ad  Jwminem;  but  they  tell 
against  those  Christian  scholars  who  would  fain 
grant  the  presence  of  the  mythical  element  in  the 
narratives    that    refer   to    Our   Lord's    infancy. 


*  Luke  9  ss ;  John  12  28,  29, 

5 


40  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

From  this  point  of  view,  viz.,  that  of  historical 
probability,  some  have  quite  overrated  the  differ- 
ence between  the  beginnings  and  the  sequel  of 
the  Gospel  History. 

Besides,  granting  that  the  life  of  Jesus  was  all 
that  the  Evangelists  say  it  actually  was — and  we 
know  that  life  only  from  their  testimony — is  it 
any  wonder  that  His  childhood  also  should  have 
been  surrounded  with  prodigies,  and  that  a 
prophet,  a  wonder-worker  who  spoke  and  acted 
as  no  other  had  ever  done,  should  have  come  into 
this  world,  accompanied  by  signs  that  foretold  His 
mission  ?  Had  the  contrary  occurred,  there  would 
have  been  incoherence  in  His  life  upon  earth. 
But  God  is  wont  to  lay  harmony  and  continuity 
at  the  basis  of  His  works. 

It  has  been  said  by  some  that  the  narratives  of 
our  canonical  Gospels  regarding  the  childhood  of 
Jesus  would  not  be  out  of  place  in  the  apocryphal 
Gospels.  This  is  an  assertion  expressly  gainsaid 
by  other  scholars,  who  have  brought  out  the 
character  of  moderation  and  reasonableness  ex- 
hibited on  this  subject  by  St,  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke.  What  the  Evangelists  recorded  about 
Nazareth,  Bethlehem,  Jerusalem,  Egypt,  Herod, 
Archelaus,  Caesar  Augustus,  and  others,  reflects 
most  accurately  the  light  of  the  times  and  the 


General  Attack  and  Defence.  41 

customs  of  the  surroundings ;  and  even  the  census 
of  Cyrinus,  difficult  as  it  may  be  to  determine  its 
precise  date,  has  very  little  to  fear  from  historical 
criticism. 

The  data  of  our  canonical  Gospels  have  been 
indeed  resumed  after  the  original  plan,  but  with 
certain  alterations,  in  some  of  the  apocryphal 
works,  particularly  in  the  Protevangelium  of 
James,  the  Gospel  of  Thomas  and  the  Arabic 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy;  *  but  it  is  easy  to  ascertain 
these  clumsy  additions.  Even  setting  aside  many 
historical,  or,  rather,  unhistorical,  mistakes  and 
inaccuracies,  we  find,  as  the  staple  of  these  pro- 
ductions, the  marvelous — and  a  marvelous  that  is 
useless,  childish  and  void  of  any  moral  bearing 
and  significance.  St.  Luke  simply  tells  us  that 
"the  Child  grew,  and  became  strong,  full  of  wis- 
dom; and  the  grace  of  God  was  upon  Him." 
(2*°.)  This  statement,  of  course,  seemed  to 
lovers  of  miracles  altogether  too  short  and  simple, 
and  so  they  chose  to  set  forth  Jesus  during  His 
childhood  as  a  wonder-worker  who  spreads  life 
and  death  as  He  passes  along.  When  sought  for 
its  own  sake,  the  supernatural  is  no  longer  a  sign 
of  the  divine,  but  a  means  of  amazing  the  reader, 


*  On  the  origin  of  those  Gospels,  see  an  article  of  LepiNj 
in  the  Revue  pratique  d'Apologetique,  Dec.  i,  1905,  p.  199. 


42  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

or  even  of  putting  him  in  good  humor.  Indeed, 
the  Jesus  as  exhibited  in  the  apocryphal  narra- 
tives is  precisely  the  one  Herod  Antipas  was  so 
anxious  to  see.* 

Nor  are  we  slow  to  concede,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  a  considerable  share  is  to  be  granted  to  arti- 
ficial composition  in  the  form  of  the  Canticles 
found  in  St.  Luke ;  however,  the  substance  itself 
remains  plausible,  and  we  have  no  serious  reason 
why  it  should  be  challenged.  The  pious  Jews  of 
those  times  were  wont  to  express,  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment,  their  religious  feelings  in  formulas 
borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  senti- 
ments set  forth  in  the  Magnificat,  the  Benedictus, 
the  Nimc  Dimittis  are  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  religious  aspirations  and  literary  methods  of 
the  surroundings  where  St.  Luke  says  they  were 
composed.  And  here  the  form  itself  tends  the 
less  to  discredit  the  substance,  that,  according  to 
the  best  critical  scholars,  the  Evangelist  follows 
closely  in  his  first  two  chapters  an  Aramean  writ- 
ing :  and  this  places  the  composition  of  the  Canti- 
cles at  an  epoch  very  close  to  the  events. 

That  the  texts  concerning  the  childhood  of  Jesus 
differ  among  themselves  is  an  ascertained  fact; 

*  Luke  23  ^. 


General  Attack  and  Defence.  43 

but  a  divergence  is  not  necessarily  an  irreconcil- 
able contradiction.  Catholics  and  conservative 
Protestants  are  not  at  all  the  only  ones  who  have 
attempted  to  harmonize  the  narrative  of  the  first 
and  of  the  third  Gospel ;  independent  critics  them- 
selves feel  obliged  to  confess  that  it  is  not  impos- 
sible to  complete  one  by  the  other,  and  thus  to 
combine  them  into  a  whole.  For  instance,  we  can 
show  in  St.  Luke  the  joint,  as  it  were,  where  the 
flight  into  Egypt  ought  to  have  come  in,  had  he 
aimed  at  giving  us  a  complete  record  of  the  facts. 
Whatever  may  be  the  explanation  of  that 
divergence — and  none  of  the  explanations  that 
have  been  given  so  far  is  altogether  satisfactory, 
so  as  to  bar  the  way  to  another — it  must  be 
granted  that  from  such  a  divergence  a  solid  proof 
can  be  drawn  in  behalf  of  the  historical  substance 
itself  identical  in  both  narratives.  Jesus,  the 
Messias  and  the  Son  of  God,  was  supernaturally 
conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  He  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  the  wife  of  the  just  Joseph;  Christ 
came  into  this  world  at  Bethlehem  of  Juda  during 
the  reign  of  King  Herod,  and  spent  His  youth 
at  Nazareth,  in  Galilee.  Did  not  these  essential 
data  rest  on  a  primitive  and  uniform  tradition, 
how  account  for  the  fact  that  they  are  found  most 
plainly  in  narratives  that  differ  in  the  other  re- 


44  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

spects?     To  this  question  radical  critics  have  so 
far  given  no  satisfactory  reply. 

If  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus  is 
merely  the  symbol  of  the  belief  in  His  heavenly 
origin,  why  is  it  that,  for  the  faithful,  that  belief 
was  uniformly  expressed  in  the  precise  shape  of 
a  physical  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  purpose 
of  which  was  to  withdraw  Christ's  humanity  from 
the  ordinary  laws  of  generation?  There  were 
many  other  ways,  indeed,  to  keep  the  stains  of 
the  flesh  off  God's  Holy  One:  the  Valentinians 
and  generally  all  the  Docetse  found  it  quite  easy 
to  account  for  His  original  purity  without  appeal- 
ing to  the  hypothesis  of  the  Virgin-Birth;  they 
advanced  the  view  that  Christ  had  not  been  be- 
gotten in  the  womb  of  Mary,  but  had  merely 
passed  through  it. 

Orthodox  belief  has  always  kept  equally  dis- 
tant from  the  two  views  it  has  always  deemed 
equally  false:  the  view  of  those  Judaizers,  who 
held  that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  same  way  as  the 
rest  of  men,  and  that  of  the  Docetse,  who  denied 
He  had  a  human  birth,  properly  so  called.  Now, 
that  middle  position  did  not  impose  itself  a  priori, 
as  though  it  was  a  necessary  deduction  or  the 
rigorous  conclusion  of  the  fundamental  dogma  of 
Redemption.     Taking  the  point  of  view  of  mere 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     45 

possiblity,  Christ,  even  granting  He  was  Man- 
God,  might  have  been  brought  forth  according  to 
the  ordinary  laws;  or,  on  the  contrary,  a  second 
Adam,  He  might  have  come  into  this  world  like 
the  first  Adam,  through  a  creative  action.  If 
almost  all  Christians  have  always  professed  that 
Christ  became  a  member  of  the  human  family  by 
being  really  born  from  a  virgin-mother,  it  is  be- 
cause that  belief  rested  on  a  well-ascertained 
Apostolic  tradition.  In  spite  of  the  opposition 
it  met  on  the  part  of  some  from  the  very  begin- 
ning, it  has  remained  an  integral  part  of  Chris- 
tian dogma,  and  is  set  forth  by  all  the  Creeds 
in  identical  terms. 


CHAPTER  II. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  DOGMA  OF  THE  VIRGIN-BIRTH  OF 
JESUS  CHRIST. 

In  whatever  way  the  belief  in  the  Virgin- 
Mother  got  hold  of  the  Christian  conscience,  if  it 
does  not  correspond  to  some  real  fact,  evidently 
there  must  have  been  a  time  when,  throughout 
the  whole  Church,  men  thought  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  Joseph  and  Mary;  and  then,  later  on,  the 
idea  of  supernatural  conception  must  have  grad- 


46  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

ually  won  universal  assent  and  set  aside  altogether 
the  primitive  data :  those  of  history. 

Myth,  as  well  as  an  intense  exaltation  of  re- 
ligious feeling,  needs  time  to  grow,  and  still  more 
to  get  universal  acceptance.  This,  Strauss  frankly 
admitted;  hence  did  he  declare  that  his  system 
of  Gospel  mythicism  would  fall  into  ruins,  v/ere 
it  ever  demonstrated  that  the  Gospels  were  written 
by  eye-witnesses  or,  at  least,  by  men  who  were 
not  far  distant  from  the  events.*  He  did  not  look 
upon  that  concession  as  compromising,  since,  when 
he  wrote,  critics  were  wont  to  place  the  composi- 
tion of  the  Gospels  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  2d 
century  and  even  still  later.  But  times  have 
changed :  nowadays  scholars  quite  generally  admit 
that  the  Synoptic  Gospels  date  from  the  ist  cen- 
tury, between  the  years  60  and  80;  nay,  many 
claim  that  the  Evangelists  made  use  of  several 
written  sources ;  this  brings  back  the  document  on 
which  they  immediately  depend,  to  a  time  very 
close  indeed  to  the  facts  themselves. 

Judging  from  the  words  of  the  first  and  third 
Evangelists'  explicit  statement,  the  conception  of 
the  Savior  was  miraculous  and  took  place  beside 
the  ordinary  laws  of  nature.     Moreover,  in  this 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  69. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     47 

instance  the  divine  action  did  not  simply  impart 
fecundity  to  a  woman  naturally  barren,  as  was 
the  case  with  Sara,  Anna,  and  Elizabeth;  but 
Jesus  was  conceived,  was  born  of  a  Virgin 
through  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  just  Joseph,  united  to  Mary  in  the 
bonds  of  a  lawful  wedlock,  remains  the  witness 
of  God's  mystery,  the  protector  of  the  Virgin- 
Mother  and  the  foster-father  of  the  Child.  And 
that  prodigy  the  Evangelists  relate  with  all  the 
calmness  of  a  faith  that  knows  on  what  grounds 
it  stands.  When  reading  their  narrative  we  feel 
that  their  belief  has  obtained  an  undisturbed  hold 
on  their  minds;  hardly  do  we  detect  in  St.  Mat- 
thew a  faint  apologetical  preoccupation  as  re- 
gards the  Jews;  at  all  events,  that  preoccupation 
is  no  more  noticeable  here  than  in  the  other  parts 
of  his  Gospel.  He  observes,  but  in  passing  as  it 
were,  that  the  wonderful  character  of  that  birth 
had  been  foretold  by  Isaias:  "Behold  the  Virgin 
shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son, 
and  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanuel,  i.  e.,  God 
with  us."    (I'^) 

According  to  the  positive  testimony  of  history, 
the  earliest  opponent  we  know  of  the  belief  re- 
corded in  the  Gospels  was  Cerinthus,  the  fore- 
runner   of    the    Judaizing    Gnostics,    who    was 


48  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

spreading  his  doctrinal  views  toward  the  end  of 
the  1st  century.  He  taught  that  until  His  bap- 
tism Jesus  had  been  merely  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary;  it  was  in  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  that  He 
became  the  Messias,  because  the  Christ  (accord- 
ing to  St.  Irenaeus)  or  the  Holy  Ghost  (according 
to  St.  Hippolytus)  then  came  down  upon  Him 
and  remained  with  Him  until  the  time  of  His 
passion.  On  the  whole  that  view  was  also  held 
later  on  by  the  Judaizers  of  Palestine,  vaguely 
styled  Ebionites  by  the  early  orthodox  historians 
and  opponents  of  heresies.* 


♦The  Latin  translation  of  St.  Irenaeus,  I,  xxvi,  2, — the 
Greek  text  being  lost — is  as  follows :  "  Qui  autem  dicuntur 
Ebionaei,  consentiunt  quidem  mundum  a  Deo  factum:  ea 
autem,  quae  sunt  erga  Dominum,  non  similiter  ut  Cerinthus 
et  Carpocrates." 

Some  scholars  have  proposed  to  read  consimiliter  instead 
of  non  similiter.  Dom  Massuet,  who  retains  this  latter 
reading,  thinks  that  St.  Irenaeus  intends  to  speak  of  those 
among  the  Ebionites,  who  admitted  the  Savior's  Virgin- 
Birth.  I  am  inclined  to  suppose  that  here  the  Bishop  of 
Lyons  refers  to  the  Ebionites  in  general,  and  that,  agree- 
ably to  what  we  learn  from  antiquity  in  their  regard,  he 
reckons  them  among  the  opponents  of  the  Virgin-Birth. 
(Cf.  EusEB.,  H.  E.,  Ill,  xxvii;  St.  Epiph.,  Adv.  Hcer., 
XXX,  2;  Theodor.,  Hcer.  fab.,  II,  cap.  i;  St.  Iren^us  him- 
self, III,  xxi,  I ;  V,  i,  3) 

To  make  the  present  text  agree  with  all  those  testimonies, 
it  suffices  to  point  as  follows :  ea  autem  qua  sunt  erga 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     49 

Mgr,  Duchesne  *  looks  upon  the  Eblonism  of 
the  2d  and  3d  centuries  as  some  kind  of  a  late 
survival  of  an  undeveloped  primitive  Judaic 
Christianity;  and  he  adds  that  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  Savior  was  the  son  of  Joseph,  there  were 
among  them  various  opinions.  According  to 
Origen,  followed  by  Eusebius  and  Theodoret.f 
the  Virgin-Birth  was  held  by  a  certain  number  of 
Ebionites. 


Dominum  non  similiter,  [sed^  ut  Cerinthus  et  Carpocrates. 
Had  we  the  Greek  text,  the  worth  of  my  conjecture  might 
be  better  judged.  In  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
Vol.  n,  p.  640,  Sanday  comes,  though  by  another  way,  to  the 
same  conclusion  as  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the 
text  of  St.  Irenseus.  By  comparing  together  Adv.  H ceres., 
I,  xxvi,  2  and  Pkilosophumena,  VH,  xxxv,  i,  (with  which 
Dom  Massuet  was  not  acquainted),  he  proposes  to  omit 
noti  before  similiter,  as  an  alteration  of  the  authentic  text. 

*  The  Early  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  91. 

t  Origen,  Contra  Cels.,  v,  61;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  HI,  xxvii; 
Theodor.,  Har.  fab.,  c.  I.  As  late  as  the  middle  of  the  2d 
century,  St.  Justin  still  knows  some  orthodox  Judaizers ; 
at  least  this  is  his  personal  view.  (Dialogue,  47.)  Now, 
by  comparing  this  passage  with  what  follows  in  the  Dia- 
logue, one  becomes  convinced  that  those  Judaizers  probably 
held  Christ's  virginal  birth.  As  to  St.  Epiphanius  (Adv. 
Hcer.,  30),  he  looks  upon  Ebionism  as  some  Proteus;  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  unable  to  draw  out  its  outlines 
with  anjrthing  like  precision. 

Cf.    Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  Vol.  I,  p.  304. 


50 The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Did  those  heretics  of  a  milder  kind — identified 
by  some  scholars  with  the  Nazarenes,  distin- 
guished by  others  from  that  sect — escape  the 
notice  of  St.  Irenaeus  and  of  Tertullian,  who  do 
not  speak  of  them;  or  did  their  sect  arise  only 
later  on  from  coming  nearer  to  orthodox  Chris- 
tianity, especially  as  regards  Christ's  conception? 
Rose  *  is  inclined  to  believe — rightly,  we  think — 
that  they  are  rather  the  authentic  remnants  of 
the  early  Judaizers.  Hegesippus,  a  Judaeo-Chris- 
tian,  who  wrote  toward  the  middle  of  the  2d 
century,  favors  apparently  that  view  when  he 
states   that,   until   Trajan's   time    (98-117),   the 


*  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  pp.  80-81. 

A  few  lines  further  on,  (p.  82),  the  same  writer  con- 
cludes as  follows :  "However  this  may  be,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  history,  the  importance  of  this  small  sect  ap- 
pears quite  secondary.  It  is  only  one  limb  of  little  value 
severed  from  the  great  Judaeo-Christian  community.  If 
its  faith  was  ever  the  primitive  faith,  it  is  to  blame  for  not 
having  completed  and  vivified  it  with  the  evangelical  riches 
which  little  by  little  came  to  light.  Perhaps,  and  indeed 
very  probably,  its  error  was  only  a  relapse ;  a  simple  return 
to  the  Messianic  ideas  of  Pharisaic  Judaism." 

However  it  must  be  granted  that  St.  Epiphanius,  (Adv. 
Hcer.,  XXX,  3),  hardly  favors  this  last  hypothesis.  Besides, 
St.  Jerome  writes  to  St.  Augustine  (Epist.,  cxxii,  13,) 
regarding  the  Nazarenes :  "Qui  credunt  in  Christum  filium 
Dei  natum  de  virgine  Maria,  in  quem  et  nos  credimus." 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     51 

Church  of  Jerusalem  remained  unspotted  in  her 
faith :  this  brings  us  back  to  the  age  of  Cerinthus. 
But  now,  how  reconcile  the  view  of  the  hetero- 
dox Ebionites  about  the  purely  human  origin  of 
Jesus  with  the  fact,  attested  by  St.  Irenseus,*  that 
they  admitted  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  where  the 
supernatural  conception  is  expressly  related?  St. 
Epiphanius  gives  us  the  answer,  I  believe,  when 
he  says  that  the  text  received  by  the  Ebionites  did 
not  include  the  first  two  chapters. f  Later  on  we 
will  try  to  find  out  the  origin  of  that  textual 
difference  and  appreciate  its  bearing ;  here  we  may 
simply  observe  that  nowhere  are  we  told  that 
those  Judaizers  opposed  the  common  belief  in  the 
name  of  a  primitive  tradition.  Their  view  on  this 
subject  was  a  consequence  of  their  attitude  toward 
Jesus'  Messiaship  and  Divinity :  since  He  had  be- 
come Christ  only  on  the  day  of  His  Baptism,  He 
had  been,  until  then,  a  plain,  ordinary  man.  This 
St.  Epiphanius  expressly  remarks :  on  this  point, 
the  Ebionites  were  influenced  by  their  erroneous 
views  about  Christ's  preexistence  and  the  part 
He  had  played  in  the  creation  of  the  world.  | 


*  Contra  Hcer.,  Ill,  x,  7. 
fAdv.  Hcer.,  XXX,  13,  14. 
tibid.,  16. 


52  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Cerinthus  pushed  still  further  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  his  system.  Professing,  as  all  Gnostics 
did,  the  essential  impurity  of  all  that  was  bodily, 
he  could  not  admit  in  Jesus  an  intimate  and  close 
union  between  the  divine  and  the  human  nature; 
hence  he  distinguished  in  Him  the  man  and  the 
Son  of  God  to  such  a  degree  that  he  actually  dis- 
united them.  Whilst  the  latter  was  born  of  God, 
the  former  could  be  but  the  offspring  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  because,  in  the  words  of  St.  Irenseus, 
"the  contrary  seemed  to  him  impossible."  * 

During  the  whole  of  the  2d  century,  even  at  its 
beginning,  most  Christians  believe  in  the  super- 
natural birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  can  be  proved 
from  explicit  testimonies,  which  are  compara- 
tively many,  if  we  take  into  account  the  very  small 
number  of  the  documents  of  that  epoch  that  have 
reached  us.  It  is  not  in  passing,  as  it  were,  that 
the  apologists  who  wrote  them  allude  to  the  ques- 
tion; they  dwell  upon  it,  and  their  explanations 
are  such  as  to  lead  us  to  believe  that  what  is  at 
stake  is  no  mere  pious  opinion,  in  favor  of  some- 
thing deemed  more  worthy  of  Christ,  but  a  neces- 
sary teaching,  closely  connected  with  that  doc- 


*  Contra  Hcer.,  I,  xxvi,  i.  "Jesum  autem  subjecit  non 
ex  virgine  natum,  impossibile  enim  hoc  ei  visum  est;  fuisse 
autem  Joseph  et  Marise  filium"    .    .    . 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     53 

trinal  system  bearing  on  the  person  of  Jesus, 
which  we  now  call  Primitive  Christology. 

True  it  is  that  the  orthodox  met  a  certain  num- 
ber of  opponents :  but  were  perfect  unanimity  re- 
quired that  one  may  have  the  right  to  affirm  that 
a  belief  is  part  and  parcel  of  Christian  Dogma, 
where,  we  ask,  is  the  article  of  the  Creed  that 
would  stand  the  trial?  As  early  as  St.  Paul's 
time,  there  were  heresies,  which,  besides,  bore  on 
most  important  points :  and  far  from  being  sur- 
prised and  put  out,  the  Apostle  declares  that  this 
is  a  condition  of  things  which  enters  into  the 
divine  plan.*  Moreover,  that  the  Virgin-Birth 
should  have  been  called  in  question  or  flatly  denied 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  especially  as  its  his- 
torical attestation,  owing  to  the  nature  of  the  fact 
itself,  involves  special  difficulties. 

Toward  the  year  106  an  immediate  disciple  of 
the  Apostles,  St.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
which  was  then  the  metropolis  of  the  East,  puts 
on  the  same  level  the  Virgin-Birth  and  the  aton- 
ing death  of  the  Son  of  God. 

"And  hidden  from  the  prince  of  this  world 
were  the  virginity  of  Mary  and  her  child-bearing 
and  likewise  also  the  death  of  the  Lord — three 

♦/Cor.,  II". 


54  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

mysteries  to  be  cried  aloud — the  which  were 
wrought  in  the  silence  of  God."  (Lightfoot's 
transl. )  * 

St.  Ignatius  means  that  at  the  moment  Mary 
conceived  and  then  brought  forth,  the  mystery  of 
the  Virgin-Mother  was  known  but  to  God  and  to 
the  only  creature  who  was  to  be  necessarily  asso- 
ciated with  it ;  men  and  devils  thought  that  Jesus 
was  a  plain,  ordinary  man  coming  into  this  world ; 
the  just  Joseph  himself  was  let  into  the  divine 
plan  only  some  time  after.  Likewise,  when  Jesus 
breathed  His  last,  very  few  indeed  were  those  who 
knew  that  on  that  infamous  gibbet  the  Son  of 
God  was  dying. 

Now,  against  the  authenticity  of  this  text, 
which  was  well  known  all  through  the  early  ages 
of  Christianity,  not  even  the  least  doubt  can  be 
raised,  t 

*  'H  napdeveia  Maptaf  kuI  6  roxerof  avTTJ^^  ifioiu^  koL  6  davaro^ 
Toi)  Kvpiov  Tpia  fivffv^pia  Kpavyrj^  ariva  kv  yavx^a  deoii  iirpdxOr] 
{Ad  Ephes.,  xix.) 

In  the  previous  chapter,  the  holy  Martyr  affirms  that 
"Our  God,  Jesus  the  Christ,  was  conceived  in  the  womb 
of  Mary  according  to  a  dispensation,  of  the  seed  of  David, 
but  also  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

In  chapter  vii,  2,  he  declares  Him  "Son  of  Mary  and  Son 
of  God,"  "koX  £k  Mapiac  Kal  ck  Oeov  " ',  cf.  Epist.  ad  Trail.,  ix. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Smyrnseans,  I,  he  writes :  yeytvTjfikvov 
alrjOuq  EK  Trapdivov^  "truly  born  of  a  virgin." 

t  See  F.  X.  Funk,  Patres  Apostolici,  i,  p.  187. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     55 

During  the  Emperor  Hadrian's  sojourn  in 
Athens,  toward  the  year  125 — perhaps  a  few 
years  later — the  philosopher  Aristides  handed  him 
an  apology  in  behalf  of  the  Christians.  That 
writing,  which  was  thought  irremediably  lost,  has 
been  wholly  recovered  in  a  Syriac  translation.* 
Now,  among  the  essential  points  of  Christian 
teaching,  that  are  there  enumerated,  the  Virgin- 
Birth  stands  side  by  side  with  the  Incarnation,  the 
death  on  the  Cross,  the  Resurrection  and  the 
Ascension.  "The  Christians  reckon  the  beginning 
of  their  religion  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  named 
the  Son  of  God  most  High ;  and  it  is  said  that  God 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  from  a  Hebrew 
virgin  took  and  clad  Himself  with  flesh,  and  in 
a  daughter  of  man  there  dwelt  the  Son  of  God."  f 

*J.  Rendel  Harris,  The  Apology  of  Aristides,  Cam- 
bridge, 1891,  in  the  collection  Texts  and  Studies,  Vol.  I, 
fasc.  I. 

t  Op.  cit.,  p.  36.  This  passage  is  reproduced  almost  word 
for  word  in  a  fragment  of  the  Armenian  version:  "He  is 
Himself  Son  of  God  on  high,  who  was  manifested  of  [or 
with]  the  Holy  Spirit,  came  down  from  heaven,  and  being 
bom  of  a  Hebrew  virgin  took  on  His  flesh  from  the  virgin, 
and  was  manifested  in  the  nature  of  humanity  the  Son  of 
God.  .  .  .  He  it  is  who  was  according  to  the  flesh  born 
of  the  race  of  the  Hebrews,  by  the  God-bearing  virgin 
Miriam  [Mary]." 

Compare  the  fragment  published  in  the  Anal.  Sacra  of 
Dom  Pitra,  1882,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  8  and  284. 

6 


56  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Most  scholars  think  that  this  passage  of  Aris- 
tides'  Apology  was  borrowed  from  a  symbol  of 
faith  used  in  the  Churches  of  Achaia ;  some  even 
have  attempted  to  restore  its  primitive  formula 
by  means  of  the  whole  text;  all  agree  on  assigning 
a  prominent  part  to  the  article  that  refers  to  the 
supernatural  conception  of  Christ  through  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Ghost.* 

After  Aristides,  another  philosopher,  who  was 
born  in  Palestine,  took  up  also  the  defence  of 
Christianity;  he  addressed  his  work  to  the  Em- 
peror Antoninus  Pius  (138-161)  ;  and  this  super- 
scription enables  us  to  date  St.  Justin's  First 
Apology  from  the  middle  of  the  2d  century. 

After  enlarging  upon  the  argument  ad  homi- 
nem,  which  amounts  to  telling  the  Greeks  that 
they  ought  not  to  take  exception  to  some  Chris- 
tian doctrines,  since  their  own  theogonies  present 
features  that  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Christian 
system,  he  adds:   "If  we  even  affirm  that   He 


♦  The  following  is  the  restoration  proposed  by  R.  Har- 
ris, p.  25 ;  "We  believe  in  one  God,  Almighty  Maker  of 
Heaven  and  Earth :  and  in  Jesus  Christ  His  Son — Born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary: — He  was  pierced  by  the  Jews :  He  died 
and  was  buried :  the  third  day  He  rose  again :  He  ascended 
into  Heaven ; — He  is  about  to  come  to  judge." 

Another  attempt  of  the  same  kind  may  be  seen  in 
Resch,  Kindlieitsevangelium,  p.  295. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     57 

was  born  of  a  Virgin,  accept  this  in  common 
with  what  you  accept  of  Perseus."  *  As  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  there  is  an  essential  difference  between 
the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  and  the  legend  about 
the  origin  of  the  Greek  heroes.  The  former  was 
foretold  many  ages  before  by  the  Hebrew  Proph- 
ets, especially  by  Isaias ;  as  to  the  fabulous  stories 
of  poets,  given  out  to  children  in  schools,  without 
any  reason  in  their  support,  they  arise  from  the 
skill  of  the  demons  who  are  bent  on  drawing 
mankind  into  error.  As  they  knew  beforehand, 
from  the  Prophetical  writings,  that  Christ  was  to 
be  born  of  a  Virgin,  they  devised  a  story,  that  of 
Perseus,  so  as  to  decrease  the  reasonableness  of 
the  true  prophecy :  in  that  attempt  at  falsification, 
however,  they  have  poorly  succeeded,  f 

Whatever  may  be  the  value  of  this  explanation, 
we  have  quoted  this  passage  of  St.  Justin  not  for 
its  own  sake,  but  simply  because  it  proves  that  the 
belief  in  Christ's  Virgin-Birth  had  gone  beyond 
the  narrow  limits  of  the  Church's  circle,  since  it 
had  to  be  defended  against  attacks  from  the  out- 
side. 

Yet,  it  is  chiefly  in  the  Dialogue  zvith  the  Jew 
Trypho  that  the  Christian  polemic  dwells  on  the 


*/  Apol.,  22. 

^  Ibid. J  21-22;  cf.  54. 


58  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

dogma  of  the  Virgin-Mother.  That  insistency 
was  needed  in  Palestine,  for  that  country  had 
witnessed  the  rise  of  the  Judaizing  sects,  which  on 
that  topic  gave  the  he  to  the  orthodox  creed. 
After  recalhng  the  prophecy  of  Isaias  (7  ^*),  St. 
Justin  remarks  that  Christ  is  the  only  descendant 
of  Abraham  that  has  ever  been  maintained  to 
have  been  born  of  a  Virgin ;  *  and  as  the  Greek 
scholars  of  the  time,  whether  Jews  or  Judaeo- 
Christians,  did  not  read  in  the  version  napdivoq 
(virgin),  but  vsav:?  (maiden),  and  understood 
of  King  Ezekias  the  whole  passage,  the  Apol- 
ogist promises  to  give  a  demonstration  on  this 
point,t  a  promise  which  he  actually  fulfills  a 
few  lines  below.|  Trypho  objects  that  the  Jews 
expect  a  Christ  who  will  be  only  a  mere  man,  and 
who  will  be  born  of  men.§  Justin  applies  himself 
to  prove  directly  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaias  refers 
only  to  Christ,! I  and  in  this  connection  draws  a 
graceful  parallel  between  Eve  and  Mary.  The 
former,  having  conceived  the  word  of  the  ser- 
pent when  she  was  still  a  virgin  and  undefiled 
(a^ffopo?),  brought  forth  disobedience  and  death; 

*Dial.,  43.  ^ 

fibid.,  43. 
t  Ibid.,  66-67. 
§  Ibid.,  49. 
II  Ibid.,  66,  84. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     59 

on  the  other  hand,  the  latter  received  faith  and  joy 
when  the  Angel  Gabriel  brought  her  the  good  tid- 
ings that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  would  come  down 
upon  her,  and  that  the  power  of  the  Most  High 
would  overshadow  her ;  then  "she  answered : 
'Be  it  done  unto  me,  according  to  thy  word.' 
And  by  her  has  He  been  born  of  whom  so  many 
Scriptures  affirm  that  He  conquered  the  ser- 
pent." *  As  Trypho  taunted  the  Christians  for 
reproducing  the  ridiculous  stories  of  the  Greeks, 
especially  that  of  Perseus,  who  was  represented 
as  the  offspring  of  the  virgin  Danse  and  of  Jupiter, 
St.  Justin  comes  back  to  the  theory  of  the  falsi- 
fication of  the  divine  mysteries  attempted  by  the 
demons,  t 

We  come  now  to  the  passage  of  the  Dialogue 
to  which  modern  critics  have  paid  a  most  special 
attention.  We  shall  give  it  almost  entire.  "Now 
assuredly  [the  proof]  that  this  man  is  the  Christ 
of  God  does  not  fail,  though  I  be  unable  to  prove 
that  He  existed  formerly  as  Son  of  the  Maker  of 
all  things,  being  God,  and  was  born  a  man  by 
the  (or  3.)  Virgin.     .     .     .     For  there  are  some, 

my    friends,    amongst    us     (rtv^?     ctto    rod     rjfieripou 


*Ibid.,  100;  cf.  also  113,  120,  127,  for  incidental  references 
to  the  same  subject. 
fibid.,  67. 


6o  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

yivouq)  who  admit  that  He  is  Christ,  whilst 
holding-  Him  to  be  a  man  born  of  men ;  * 
with  whom  I  do  not  agree,  nor  would  I,  even 
though  most  of  those  who  have  the  same  opinions 
as  myself  should  say  so;  since  we  were  enjoined 


*  Our  quotation  and  translation  are  from  the  text  of  Dom 
Maranus,  reproduced  in  Migne,  P.  G.,  vi,  581. — The  learned 
editor  chose  the  reading  r/^erepov  yevovc,  nosiri  generis, 
thus  referring  the  pronoun  to  those  Christians  who  were 
of  Jewish  origin;  i.  e.,  to  the  Ebionites.  In  a  footnote,  he 
attempts  to  show  that  St.  Justin  uses  elsewhere  the  word 
yevog  in  a  broad  sense,  so  as  to  designate  not  only  those 
of  the  same  race,  but  also  those  of  the  same  category. 
Cf.  Dial.,  35,  82,  and  /  ApoL,  26.  In  his  History  of  Dogma, 
Vol.  I,  p.  297,  n.  3,  after  comparing  the  printed  editions 
with  the  Codex  Paris.,  Harnack  thinks  we  should  read 
vfierepov  yh'ov?,  generis  vestri,  thus  referring  the  pronoun 
to  the  Jews.  However,  he  also  grants  that  the  opponents 
of  the  Virgin-Birth,  to  whom  the  Apologist  alludes,  are 
Judaeo-Christians. — The  question  is  unimportant  as  to  the 
use  we  intend  now  to  make  of  St.  Justin's  words.  What- 
ever the  authentic  reading  may  be,  this  much  is  beyond 
doubt,  that  toward  the  middle  of  the  2d  century,  very 
few  indeed  are  those  who  deny  the  belief  in  the  Virgin- 
Birth.  At  all  events,  the  text  of  St.  Justin  does  not  entitle 
critics  to  affirm,  as  Herzog  does  in  the  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de 
Litter.  Relig.,  1907,  p.  132,  that  "the  Ebionites  alone  had 
preserved  the  teaching  received  in  the  genealogical  lists." 
Origen,  on  this  point  a  far  more  competent  judge  than 
we  are,  affirms  that  some  Christians  who  had  come  from 
the  Gentile  world  took  exception  to  this  dogma.  Comm. 
in  Matt.,  Vol.  xvi,  12;  Migne,  P.  G.,  xiii,  1413. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     6i 

by  Christ  Himself  to  put  no  faith  in  human  doc- 
trines, but  in  those  proclaimed  by  the  blessed 
Prophets  and  taught  by  Himself,"  * 

This  text  shows  most  explicitly  that  for  St. 
Justin  the  Virgin-Birth  is  not  a  mere  opinion, 
but  a  certain  and  essential  article  of  the  Christian 
faith;  that  this  doctrine  is  not  the  conclusion  of 
an  argument,  nor  a  teaching  necessarily  called  for 
by  a  system,  but  an  assertion,  a  part  of  the  tradi- 
tion both  of  ancient  Jews  and  of  Christians; 
finally,  that  most  Christians,  nay,  almost  all 
{nXeTazot )  Christians,  even  in  Palestine,  hold  that 
belief.  True,  some  {rtvi^)  think  differently: 
but  their  view  may  be  passed  by,  since  they  are 
outside  true  tradition. f 

St.  Irenaeus  has  been  called  the  earliest  theo- 
logian of  the  Virgin-Mother,  because  he  has  de- 
scribed, better  than  any  one  of  his  contemporaries, 
Mary's  share  in  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Word. 


*  Dialog.,  48. 


t  Hence  when  Fred.  C.  Conybeare,  in  the  Standard,  May 
II,  1905,  translates  rivec  by  many,  he  strains  the  meaning  of 
the  term.  That  mistake  becomes  still  more  serious  when 
Houtin,  La  Question  Bihlique  au  XX^»^e  Siecle,  p.  248, 
renders  the  English  word  many  by  the  French  beaucoup. 


62  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  summary  of  the  Catholic  faith  he  gives 
at  the  beginning  of  his  great  work,  Against  Her- 
esies, the  Virgin-Birth  holds  its  fitting  place, 
between  the  article  regarding  the  Incarnation  in 
general  and  that  regarding  the  Savior's  Passion.* 
For  Irenseus  that  point  is  so  important  that  he 
does  not  separate  it  from  his  belief  in  Our  Lord's 
divinity.  "But,  again,"  he  says,  "those  who  assert 
that  He  [Jesus]  was  a  mere  man,  begotten  by 
Joseph,  remain  in  the  bondage  of  the  old  dis- 
obedience and  are  in  a  state  of  death;  not  having 
been  as  yet  joined  to  the  Word  of  God  the  Father, 
nor  receiving  liberty  through  the  Son,  as  He  does 
Himself  declare :  'If  the  Son  shall  make  you  free, 
you  shall  be  free  indeed.'  But,  being  ignorant  of 
Him  who,  being  born  from  the  Virgin,  is  Em- 
manuel, they  are  deprived  of  His  gift,  which  is 
eternal  life."t 

A  few  lines  afterwards,  whilst  dwelling  on  the 
prophecy  of  Isaias  (7"),  St.  Irenseus  manifestly 
alludes  to  the   fourth  Gospel    (i^^);J  then  he 


*  I,  X,   I  ;    ((icai.  Trji'  cK  Tiap9ivov  yivvqciv)), 

t  III,  xix,  I. 

J  We  shall  come  back  later  on  to  this  peculiar  reading 
"qui  ex  Deo  natus  est,"  instead  of  "qui  ex  Deo  nati  sunt." 
Cf.  p. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     63 

adds :  "If  He  were  the  Son  of  Joseph,  how  could 
He  be  greater  than  other  men?  How  could  St. 
Peter  have  proclaimed  Him  the  Son  of  the  living 
God  ?  *  Those  who  hope  in  a  Jesus  begotten  of 
Joseph  fall  under  the  curse  directed  against 
Jechoniah  and  his  seed.  As  Adam  was  formed  by 
God  from  virgin  soil,  so  the  Christ  was  made  by 
God  of  a  Virgin-Mother. "t 

The  contrast  between  Eve  and  Mary,  which 
had  been  only  outlined  by  St.  Justin,  is  now  taken 
up  and  developed  in  such  a  way  that  it  becomes 
a  distinctive  feature  of  the  teaching  of  St.  Ire- 
nseus.  "Just  as,  through  her  disobedience,  Eve, 
being  espoused  to  a  man,  but  still  a  virgin,  brought 
death  to  herself  and  to  all  mankind;  so,  also, 
through  her  obedience,  Mary,  who  had  also  a 
predestined  husband,  and  was  also  a  virgin, 
brought  salvation  to  herself  and  to  all  humanity. 
.  Just  as  the  former  was  led  astray  by  the 
word  of  an  angel,  so  that  she  fled  from  God  when 
she  had  transgressed  His  word;  so  did  the  latter 
by  an  angelic  communication  receive  the  glad 
tidings  that  she  should  sustain  God,  being  obedient 


*  III,  xxi,  8. 


t  This  is  a  mere  summary  of  a  long  passage,  the  whole 
of  which  should  be  read :  III,  xxi,  i-io. 


64  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

to  His  word.  And  if  the  former  did  disobey  God, 
yet  the  latter  was  persuaded  to  be  obedient  to  God 
in  order  that  the  Virgin  Mary  might  become  the 
advocate  of  the  virgin  Eve.  And  thus,  as  the 
human  race  fell  into  bondage  to  death  by  means 
of  a  virgin,  so  it  is  rescued  by  a  virgin."  * 

This,  then,  is  the  way  in  which  the  tradition 
brought  into  Gaul  from  the  East  set  forth,  toward 
the  year  i8o,  the  Christian  dogma.  Nay,  even 
the  theological  explanations  with  which  it  is  ac- 
companied are  already  traditional;  at  least,  they 
were  current  as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  2d 
century,  as  may  be  inferred  from  their  presence 
in  St.  Justin. 

That  at  that  time  the  belief  in  Christ's  Virgin- 
Birth  was  already  considered  a  tradition  of 
Apostolic  origin  necessarily  follows  from  the 
fact  that  this  belief  is  recorded  in  the  various 
formularies  of  faith  that  were  then  current,  and 
that  all  depend  on  a  common  type  commonly 
called  the  Apostles'  Creed.j  The  formula,  "Con- 
ceived by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  born  of  the  Virgin 


*  V,  xix,  I ;  cf .  IV,  xxiii,  where  he  sums  up  the  first 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel. 

t  Regarding  the  origin  and  history  of  that  Creed,  and 
also  regarding  its  wording  in  the  2d  century,  cf.  Vacant's 
Dictionnaire  de  Thcologie  Catholique,  vol.  I,  col.  1660-1680. 


History  of  Dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth.     65 

Mary,"  which  seems  to  have  prevailed  as  early  as 
the  second  half  of  the  4th  century,  at  least  in  the 
West,  is  merely  the  legitimate  development  of 
another  more  ancient :  "born  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
through  the  Virgin  Mary"  ;  *  or,  again:  "born  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  As 
far  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  writings  of  the 
2d  century,  the  primitive  formula  was  probably, 
"born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  Thus  reduced  to  its 
most  simple  expression,  this  article  exposes  sub- 
stantially the  Christian  dogma,  which  will  be  later 
on  stated  more  accurately  by  means  of  a  few 
changes,  called  for  by  the  denials  or  the  wiles  of 
heresy. 

The  faith  held  during  the  2d  century  passes  on 
whole  and  unquestioned  to  the  following  genera- 
tions. In  the  midst  of  the  long  and  momentous 
turmoil  of  Arianism,  Mary's  privilege  is  left  in- 
tact ;  and  when,  during  the  4th  century,  Helvidius 
and  the  "Antidikomarianites"!  deny  the  perpetual 
virginity  of  the  Mother  of  God,  they  never  call 
in  doubt  the  fact  that  she  conceived  Christ  super- 
naturally.  The  Jews  themselves  then  realized 
that  a  belief  so  deeply  rooted  must  be  taken  into 


*'E/c  is  used  instead  of   iu,  against  the  Valentinians. 
t  The  word  is  from  St.  Epiphanius.    Cf.  SchafFj  History 
of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  417. 


66  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

account,  and  instead  of  representing  obstinately 
Jesus  as  the  legitimate  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary, 
they  chose  to  look  upon  Him  as  an  adulterous 
offspring-.  At  least,  that  is  the  gross  slander 
placed  on  the  lips  of  a  Jew  by  Celsus,  who  wrote 
between  the  years  177  and  180:  a  mere  insult, 
says  Origen,*  which  is  still  more  incredible  than 
the  early  denials.  What  makes  us  believe  that 
the  introduction  of  the  Jew  into  the  "True  Dis- 
course" is  not  simply  a  literary  fancy  on  the  part 
of  the  author,  is  that  the  legend  exposed  by  the 
Jew  is  found  later  on  in  Jewish  writings,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Talmud,  f  and  in  the  libel  entitled 
Toledoth  Jesu.% 

The  coarse  tale  concocted  by  the  Jews  was 
almost  confined  to  the  Ghetto;  the  opposition  of 
the  Judaizers  soon  disappeared  or  changed  to- 


*  Contra  Celsum,  i,  28,  32-37.  After  discussing  in  detail 
all  the  assertions  of  Celsus  or  of  his  Jew,  Origen  adds 
that  such  a  fancy  is  more  worthy  of  a  buffoon  than  of 
a  writer  who  has  any  sense  of  self-respect :  ToCra  pufio\6x<» 

inptnt  Ta  pjjuara,  xai  ov  anovSa^ovrC  iv  tjj  anayytkia . 

t  Cf.  Sank.,  f.  67,  i;  Schabb.,  f.  104,  2;  Chaghiga  Jems.. 
f.  yy,  4;  Babyl.,  f.  4,  2.  Dr.  Sam.  Strauss,  Das  Lehen  Jesu 
vach  jildischen  Quellen,  p.  214,  has  quite  recently  reedited 
all  those  slanderous  reports.  Cf.  Laible,  Jesus  Christus 
im  Talmud;  Herford,  Christianity  in  Talmud  and  Midrash. 

t  A  work  of  the  13th  century. 


Modern  Opponents.  67 

gether  with  the  sect  itself,  so  that  never,  from 
the  middle  of  the  3d  to  the  end  of  the  i8th  cen- 
tury, do  we  hear  the  Virgin-Birth  of  Our  Lord 
called  in  question.* 

CHAPTER  III. 

MODERN  OPPONENTS. 

No  UNBELIEVERS,  down  to  the  Encyclopaedists 
themselves,  did  more  than  to  rehash  the  attacks 
of  Celsus,  Porphyry  and  Julian  the  Apostate 
against  the  authority  of  the  Gospels.  These  at- 
tacks amount  to  affirm  that  the  Evangelists'  testi- 
mony cannot  always  be  received :  on  many  points, 
they  are  either  deceived  or  deceivers.  Their  nar- 
rative is  cut  into  two  parts,  as  it  were:  all  that 
tends  to  reduce  Christ  to  man's  level  is  retained 
as  true ;  as  to  His  wonderful  deeds,  they  are  sim- 
ply dismissed  as  the  products  of  lie  or  of  legend. 
How  arbitrary  such  a  proceeding  is  and  how  dam- 


*  The  history  of  the  early  Christian  belief  in  Christ's 
supernatural  conception  has  been  exposed  by  Swete,  The 
Apostles'  Creed,  ch.  iv;  and  still  more  recently  by  T. 
Allen  Hoben^  The  Virgin-Birth,  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology,  July  and  October,  1902.  The  definitions  of 
the  Church  on  this  point  may  be  read  in  Denzinger. 
Enchiridion,  nn.  113,  132,  204,  229,  880  (new  edit.,  1908,  nn. 
19,  143,  256,  282,  993). 


68  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

aging  to  the  moral  character  of  the  Founder  of 
Christianity,  Origen  did  not  fail  to  point  out  in 
his  criticism  of  Celsus.* 

However,  Voltaire's  witty  sarcasms  soon 
proved  unable  to  hold  successfully  in  check  rec- 
ords as  venerable  as  the  Gospels.  The  Deists, 
who  prided  themselves  on  using  what  they  styled 
the  right  method  in  matters  of  history  and  phi- 
losophy, wished  to  get  rid  of  the  supernatural  in 
a  far  more  dignified  manner.  Their  spokesman 
was  first  Gottlob  Paulus.f  The  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  his  criticism  consists  in  distinguishing, 
in  the  Gospel  history,  the  facts  themselves  from 
the  judgments  that  are  passed  on  their  nature. 
In  the  time  of  Jesus  almost  all  were  inclined  to 
look  upon  any  striking  occurrence  as  the  result 
of  an  unseen  and  superhuman  cause.  Both  writers 
and  readers  believed  in  the  supernatural,  that  is 
to  say  in  the  immediate  intervention  of  the  First 
Cause;  and  they  thought  they  could,  in  this  way, 
reduce  to  unity  all  the  various  phenomena  that 
take  place  in  this  world.     If  we  only  leave  aside 

*  Contra  Celsum,  ii,  33,  2>7- 

t  The  work  of  Paulus,  which  began  about  the  year  1800 
with  some  exegetical  studies  on  the  Gospels,  is  summed  up 
in  a  Life  of  Jesus,  which  appeared  in  1828,  with  the  sig- 
nificant title :  Lehen  Jesu  als  Grundlage  einer  reinen 
Geschichte  des  Urchristentums. 


Modern  Opponents.  69 

the  appreciations  dictated  by  religious  prejudice, 
we  shall  get  what  remains  of  the  true  history  of 
Jesus :  His  merely  natural  life,  such  as  it  actually 
occurred. 

What  became  of  the  Gospel  in  this  exegetical 
system  can  be  seen  in  any  text-book  of  Biblical 
Criticism ;  *  here  we  shall  recall  to  our  readers' 
mind  but  one  detail,  which  pertains  to  the  very 
heart  of  the  question.  It  will  suffice  for  our  pur- 
pose to  manifest  the  scantiness  and  clumsiness  of 
that  naturalistic  criticism  which  would  keep  the 
Gospels,  whilst  excluding  the  Gospel  historians 
themselves. 

In  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  Angel — who,  by 
the  way,  was  but  a  fictitious  personage — did  not 
mean  to  tell  Joseph  that  Mary  had  become  preg- 
nant without  man's  cooperation,  but  only  that,  in 
spite  of  her  pregnancy,  she  was  to  be  looked  upon 
as  perfectly  stainless.  The  dialogue  between 
Gabriel  and  Mary,  in  St.  Luke,  offered  still  more 
resistance  to  that  fanciful  exegesis.  Hence,  in 
this  case,  Paulus  does  away  with  any  half-meas- 
ure; he  boldly  introduces  into  the  scene  of  the 
Annunciation  a  third  person;  the  Angel  Gabriel 
is  nothing  else  than  a  man  in  full  flesh  and  blood ; 


*Cf.  Vigouroux,  Les  Livres  Saints  et  la  Critique  Ratio- 
naliste,  3d  edit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  436. 


70  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Mary  was  simply  deceived ;  Elisabeth  is  suspected 
to  have  been  the  prime  mover  of  the  pious  plot. 
Venturini  goes  still  further ;  he  modestly  surmises 
that  the  hero  of  all  this  intrigue  is  none  but  Joseph 
of  Arimathea,*  and  in  order  to  confirm  his  con- 
jecture he  fondly  relates  a  trick  of  opera-comic 
he  has  read  in  the  historian  Josephus.f  Here  we 
are  again  in  presence  of  the  old  Jewish  slander 
which  we  had  already  met  for  the  first  time  in 
Celsus  and  in  the  Talmud, 

Protestant  theologians,  like  Olshausen  and 
Hengstenberg,  were  not  slow  to  point  out  from 
the  very  first  to  fair-minded  Germans  the  radical 
defects  of  Paulus'  hypothesis.  It  was  soon  real- 
ized that  for  any  one  to  attempt  to  reduce  to 
natural  proportions  a  history  constantly  thought 
out  and  written  from  a  supernatural  point  of 
view  was  not  unlike  attempting  to  unsalt  the  sea. 
The  attack  had  been  so  unreasonable  that,  in- 
stead of  being  overthrown,  the  authority  of  the 
Gospel  records  had  been  but  enhanced  by  it. 

Then  it  was  that  David  Frederick  Strauss  set 
out  to   interpret  the   Bible,   including  the    New 


*  In  his  Natural  History  of  the  Great  Prophet  of  Naza- 
reth. 

■fAntiq.  Jud.,  XVIII,  iii,  4. 


Modern  Opponents.  71 

Testament,  according  to  the  mythological  method 
which  had  been  already  applied  to  the  profane 
history  of  the  nations  of  old.  The  title  Life  of 
Jesus,  he  gave  to  his  work  (1835)  *  is  not  well 
chosen,  for  the  author  is  more  intent  on  stating 
with  precision  the  historical  value  of  the  Gospels 
than  on  relating  the  life  of  Christ.  His  predeces- 
sors, in  this  respect,  had  done  honor  to  religious 
feeling. t  Afraid,  as  they  were,  of  putting  the 
Gospels  on  the  same  level  as  other  books,  they 
spoke  of  historical  myth,  by  which  was  meant 
the  narrative  of  facts  that  were  real  indeed,  but 
colored,  as  it  were,  by  ancient  opinion,  which  was 
fond  of  associating  the  divine  with  the  human. 
They  admitted,  too,  the  poetical  myth — that  is,  a 
kind  of  poem  substantially  historical,  in  which, 
however,  the  primitive  fact  is  modified,  though 
not  altogether  done  away  with,  by  and  under  the 
fancies  of  a  youthful  and  rich  imagination.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  same  scholars  denied  that  in 


*  [Strauss'  work  has  been  translated  into  English  by 
George  Eliot.  The  subsequent  references  are  to  the  second 
edition  of  that  translation,  London  and  New  York,  1892. — 
T.] 

t  Especially  Gabler,  Bauer,  Schelling,  Schleiermacher, 
de  Wette,  and  the  anonymous  author  of  the  work  on 
Religion  and  Mythology  (1799). 

7 


'J2  The  Childhood  of  Jestis  Christ. 

the  Gospels  there  was  the  myth  strictly  so  called — 
whether  philosophical  or  religious  does  not  mat- 
ter— which  consists  in  setting  forth  an  idea  or  a 
doctrine  under  an  historical  form,  and  in  giving 
it  the  turn,  as  it  were,  of  an  actual  occurrence, 
although  the  narrative,  as  such,  corresponds  to 
nothing  real  and  concrete.  Most  of  those  schol- 
ars spoke  of  legend  rather  than  of  myth,  and  even 
then,  restricting  legendary  narratives  to  the  first 
pages  of  the  Gospels,  they  appealed  almost  ex- 
clusively to  them,  as  an  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  Jesus'  infancy. 

All  those  attempts  seemed  to  Strauss  as  many 
clumsy  compromises;  he  thought  that,  after  all, 
they  were  mere  modifications  of  Paulus'  view, 
since,  according  to  those  hypotheses  also,  the 
exegete  had  only  to  separate  the  more  or  less 
disfigured  fact  from  what  popular  fancy  had 
added  to  it.  Therefore  he  will  be  radical  and 
speak  of  the  Gospel  myth,  just  as  others  spoke  of 
the  Greek  myth.  He  defines  it  "a  narrative  re- 
lating directly  or  indirectly  to  Jesus,  which  may 
be  considered  not  as  the  expression  of  a  fact,  but 
as  the  product  of  an  idea  of  his  earliest  follow- 
ers." * 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  86.     Even  thus  understood,  the  myth 
is  distinct   from  the  parable.     The  latter  claims  to  be  a 


Modern  Opponents.  73 

Is  the  Gospel  myth  the  result  of  an  individual 
conception  or  a  creation  of  the  popular  view? 
Strauss  admits  that  the  tradition  recorded  in  the 
Gospels  formed  and  developed  gradually  under 
that  twofold  influence;  he  speaks  even  of  later 
additions,  which  must  be  ascribed  to  the  Evangel- 
ists themselves  and  have  for  their  purpose  to 
place  the  things  more  vividly  before  the  reader, 
to  give  them  more  connexion  and  development. 
However,  he  confesses  that  it  is  no  easy  task 
accurately  to  discriminate  between  wilful  fiction 
and  spontaneous  legend. 

As  may  be  seen,  Paulus'  view  is  given  up;  the 
wonderful  character  of  the  Gospel  narrative  de- 
pends no  longer  on  the  judgment  of  the  contem- 
poraries, who,  we  are  told  by  Paulus,  attempted  to 
connect  the  facts  with  a  supernatural  cause;  for 

fiction,  having  only  a  didactic  value,  the  former  essentially 
implies  a  kind  of  equivalence  between  the  idea  and  the 
fact  in  which  that  idea  is  expressed  and  moulded,  as  it 
were.  On  one  occasion  Jesus  described  by  means  of  a 
fiction  the  fate  that  awaited  the  unbelieving  Synagogue : 
this  is  the  parable  of  the  gardener  and  of  the  barren  fig- 
tree  (Luke  13^);  some  mythologists  maintain  that  popu- 
lar imagination  soon  transformed  that  parable  into  a 
fact,  the  one  related  in  Mark  ii  i^;  according  to  them,  we 
have  here  a  myth  strictly  so  called.  Although  their 
hypothesis  has  no  sufficient  grounds,  still  it  serves  to  illus- 
trate the  difference  between  a  parable  and  a  m3rth. 


74  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 


Strauss,  the  belief  of  subsequent  generations  casts 
itself  back,  as  it  were,  into  the  field  of  history. 
Then,  too,  Strauss  admits  that  here  and  there 
we  find  in  the  Gospels  narratives  and  features  that 
are  not  void  of  reality ;  they  represent  all  that 
has  been  transmitted  to  us  of  the  true  life  of 
Jesus. 

How  can  we  distinguish  these  historical  data 
from  the  mythological  fancies  with  which  they 
are  woven  up?  To  this  important  question  the 
author  of  the  Life  of  Jesus  devotes  the  last  para- 
graph of  his  introduction ;  and  there  he  sets  forth 
a  certain  number  of  rules  which  he  himself  felt 
were  lacking  in  precision.  The  following  is  the 
most  striking  passage:  "Where  not  merely  the 
particular  nature  and  manner  of  an  occurrence  is 
critically  suspicious,  its  external  circumstances 
represented  as  miraculous  and  the  like ;  but  where 
likewise  the  essential  substance  and  groundwork 
is  either  inconceivable  in  itself,  or  is  in  striking 
harmony  with  some  Messianic  idea  of  the  Jews  of 
that  age,  then  not  the  particular  alleged  course 
and  mode  of  the  transaction  only,  but  the  entire 
occurrence  must  be  regarded  as  unhistorical. 
Where,  on  the  contrary,  the  form  only,  and  not 
the  general  contents  of  the  narration,  exhibits  the 
characteristics  of  the  unhistorical,  it  is  at  least 


Modern  Opponents.  75 

possible  to  suppose  a  kernel  of  historical  fact; 
although  we  can  never  confidently  decide  whether 
this  kernel  of  fact  actually  exists,  or  in  what  it 
consists;  unless,  indeed,  it  be  discoverable  from 
other  sources."  * 

Before  this  system  of  interpretation  is  minutely 
applied  to  the  New  Testament,  a  most  momentous 
difficulty  has  to  be  removed.  That  difficulty  comes 
from  the  fact  that,  at  the  time  of  Jesus,  the 
mythical  ages  had  long  ceased  to  exist;  men 
moved  and  deeds  were  accomplished  in  the  full 
light  of  history;  Jewish  literature  is  rather  con- 
siderable; that  of  the  Christians  reckons,  in  less 
than  fifty  years,  twenty-six  books  which  are  said 
to  have  been  written  by  contemporaries.  "It 
would  be,"  says  Strauss,  "most  unquestionably 
an  argument  of  decisive  weight  in  favor  of  the 
credibility  of  the  biblical  history,  could  it  indeed  be 
shown  that  it  was  written  by  eye-witnesses,  or 
even  by  persons  nearly  contemporaneous  with  the 
events  narrated."!  Hence  the  followers  of  the 
mythical  theory  profited  most  gladly  by  the  cur- 
rent of  thought  which  was  started  at  that  time  by 
a  Tubingen  scholar,  Christian  Baur,  who  assigned 


*  Life  of  Jesus^  p.  91. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  69. 


y^  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

to  a  late  period  the  composition  of  the  Gos- 
pels. Another  circumstance  which,  according  to 
Strauss,  could  be  put  to  the  best  account,  comes 
from  the  nature  of  the  Messianic  myth  itself.  In 
his  eyes,  that  myth  existed  already  in  the  first 
century  of  our  era,  and  the  only  thing  that  re- 
mained to  be  done  was  to  apply  it  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  Under  the  influence  of  an  exegesis, 
erroneous  according  to  Strauss,  although  common 
among  the  Jews,  the  best  part  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  applied  to  the  Messias  that  was  to  come. 
This  is  the  chief  source  of  the  Messianic  legend 
which  is  manifest  in  popular  views. 

"The  Messiah  was  to  come  of  the  race  of 
David,  and  as  a  second  David  take  possession  of 
his  throne;  and  therefore  in  the  time  of  Jesus  it 
was  expected  that  He,  like  David,  should  be  born 
in  the  little  village  of  Bethlehem.  ...  In 
general,  the  whole  Messianic  era  was  expected  to 
be  full  of  signs  and  wonders.  The  eyes  of  the 
blind  should  be  opened,  the  ears  of  the  deaf  should 
be  unclosed,  the  lame  should  leap,  and  the  tongue 
of  the  dumb  praise  God  (Isaiah  35  ^ ;  cf.  42  ^; 
32^'*).  These  merely  figurative  expressions 
soon  came  to  be  understood  literally  (Matt. 
II  ^;  Luke  7  ^^)  ;  and  thus  the  idea  of  the  Mes- 
siah was  continually  filled  up  with  new  details. 


Modern  Opponents.  yy 

even  before  the  appearance  of  Jesus.  Thus 
many  of  the  legends  respecting  Him  had  not  to 
be  newly  invented;  they  already  existed  in  the 
popular  hope  of  the  Messiah,  having  been  mostly 
derived  with  various  modifications  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  had  merely  to  be  transferred  to 
Jesus,  and  accommodated  to  His  character  and 
doctrines.  In  no  case  could  it  be  easier  for  the 
person  who  first  added  any  new  feature  to  the 
description  of  Jesus  to  believe  himself  its  genuine- 
ness, since  his  argument  would  be :  Such  and  such 
things  must  have  happened  to  the  Messiah;  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah;  therefore  such  and  such  things 
happened  to  Him."  * 

These  are  the  broad  outlines  of  the  mythical 
system  proposed  by  Strauss;  now  we  may  see 
how  he  applies  it  to  the  Gospel  records  that  per- 
tain to  the  infancy  of  Jesus.f 

The  Precursor's  miraculous  birth  is  a  mere  re- 
production of  those  narratives  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment referring  to  barren  couples  which  in  spite 
of  their  advanced  age  became  fecund  because  of 
a  special  divine  blessing.  John  the  Baptist  is  one 
more  late  child,  such  as  were  Isaac,  Samson,  and 
Samuel.     The  whole  narrative  in  St.  Luke  was 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  83-84. 
t  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  93-205. 


y8  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

composed  by  a  Judaizing  Christian  when  there 
were  still  some  disciples  who  clung  to  John  alone ; 
the  author's  purpose  is  to  draw  them  to  Chris- 
tianity by  representing  their  Master  as  the  great- 
est of  all  Prophets  sent  by  God  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  Messias.     The  only  certain  historical 
fact  is  merely  this :  By  his  authority  and  preach- 
ing, John  made  so  powerful  an  impression  that 
subsequently  Christian  legend  was  led  to  glorify 
his  birth  and  to  associate  it  with  that  of  Jesus. 
The  genealogies  given  in  the  first  and  in  the 
third  Gospel  are  unhistorical :  both  were  devised 
in  order  that  the  title  of  Son  of  David,  commonly 
given  to  the  Messias  in  Jewish  literature,  might  be 
legally  claimed  in  behalf  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
The  birth  of  several  illustrious  men  of  the  Old 
Testament  had  been  announced  beforehand  by  a 
heavenly  apparition;  could  less  be  done  for  the 
Messias?     .     .     .     and  here  it  was  that  Chris- 
tians remembered  that,  according  to  Isaias,  the 
Emmanuel  was  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin.     The 
whole  narrative  of  Matthew  and  Luke  was  built 
up  from  this  point  of  view.     However,  Strauss 
remarks,  that  hypothesis  cannot  be  held,  for  "Plu- 
tark's  remark :  'Never  has  a  woman  been  reported 
to  have  begotten  without  man's  help,'  and  Cerin- 
thus'  impossible  become  applicable." 


Modern  Opponents.  79 

Our  author  knows  well  that  some  scholars  have 
accumulated  examples  of  virginal  birth,  taken 
from  Grseco-Roman  mythology :  Hercules,  Castor 
and  Pollux,  Romulus,  Alexander,  above  all 
Pythagoras  and  Plato,  were  looked  upon  as  born 
of  a  god  and  of  a  mortal  mother.  Although  his 
view  needs  all  the  support  it  can  get,  Strauss  at- 
taches little  value  to  these  analogies,  for  he  is 
fully  conscious  of  the  essential  differences  that 
are  to  be  found  between  the  Judseo-Christian  re- 
ligion and  Heathenism. 

St.  Luke  takes  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem, 
merely  to  be  able  to  invoke  in  behalf  of  Jesus  the 
prophecy  of  Michseas  (5  ^).  "Thus  we  have  here 
neither  a  fixed  point  for  the  date  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  nor  an  [historical]  explanation  of  the  occa- 
sion which  led  to  his  being  born  precisely  at 
Bethlehem.  If  then — it  may  justly  be  said — no 
other  reason  why  Jesus  should  have  been  born  at 
Bethlehem  can  be  adduced  than  that  given  by 
Luke,  we  have  absolutely  no  guarantee  that  Beth- 
lehem was  his  birthplace."  * 

"The  x^ngels  did  not  appear  to  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  of  Jerusalem,  who  were  full  of  all 
malice,   but  to  the  shepherds,   in  the   fields,   on 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  156. 


8o  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

account  of  their  simplicity  and  innocence,  and  be- 
cause they  by  their  mode  of  Hfe  were  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  patriarchs.  It  was  in  the  field  by 
the  flocks  that  Moses  was  visited  by  a  heavenly 
apparition;  and  God  took  David,  the  forefather 
of  the  Messiah,  from  his  sheepfolds  (at  Beth- 
lehem) to  be  the  shepherd  of  his  people."  (Psalm 
78  ^^)* 

The  story  of  the  Magi,  related  by  Matthew,  is 
only  an  equivalent  for  that  of  the  shepherds,  told 
by  St.  Luke.  In  these  two  stories  we  have  two 
ways  of  introducing  the  Messianic  child :  one  has 
for  its  purpose  to  announce  the  birth  of  Jesus  to 
the  neighborhood,  the  other  to  announce  it  to  far- 
distant  countries.  Besides,  neither  of  these  two 
narratives  is  historical  at  all.  When  announcing 
that  a  star  was  to  rise  out  of  Jacob,  Balaam's 
prophecy  did  not  refer  to  a  genuine  star ;  it  merely 
compared  to  a  star  the  expected  prince;  but  be- 
cause of  the  growing  belief  in  astrology,  the 
passage  soon  came  to  be  literally  understood. 
Hence  the  birth  of  Jesus  must  have  been  an- 
nounced by  a  star;  and  who  could  have  observed 
the  phenomenon  better  than  professional  astrol- 


*Ibid.,  p.  160.  [It  may  be  observed  that  the  first  part 
of  this  quotation  is  a  quotation,  though  distorted,  from 
Theophylactus. — ^T.] 


Modern  Opponents.  8i 

ogers,  of  whom  the  East  was  the  classical  home ! 
The  gifts  which  we  are  told  were  made  by  the 
Magi,  were  suggested  by  the  text  of  Isaias 
(60 ''•«). 

"To  represent  a  murderous  decree  as  having 
been  directed  by  Herod  against  Jesus,  was  the 
interest  of  the  primitive  Christian  legend.  In  all 
times,  legend  has  glorified  the  infancy  of  great 
men  by  persecutions  and  attempts  on  their  life."  * 
Again,  the  murders  committed  by  the  hateful 
Idumsean  even  in  his  family  gave  an  appearance 
of  probability  to  the  part  assigned  to  him  in  the 
Bethlehem  massacre.  As  to  the  choice  of  Egypt, 
as  a  place  of  refuge  for  Jesus,  we  can  easily  ac- 
count for  it :  because  owing  to  its  proximity,  that 
country  was  the  most  convenient  asylum  for  any 
one  fleeing  from  Judsea.  And  then  was  not  the 
Messias  to  be  brought  back  from  Egypt,  accord- 
ing to  Osee's  prophecy  (11  ^)  ? 

The  circumcision  and  the  presentation  in  the 
Temple  are  performed  in  fulfilment  of  the 
Mosaic  Law.  Influenced  by  the  same  predomi- 
nant thought,  St.  Paul  also  wrote  that  Christ  was 
"born  under  the  law"  (Gal.  4  *) .    As  to  the  Canti- 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  175.  Strauss  instances  Cyrus  (Herod- 
otus, i,  108) ;  Romulus  (Livy,  i,  4) ;  Augustus  (Suet., 
Octav.,  94)  ;  Moses  (Exod.,  i). 


82  The  Childhood  of  Jestis  Christ. 

cles  found  in  St.  Luke,  they  remind  us  of  those 
of  the  Old  Testament :  for  instance,  of  the  Canti- 
cle of  the  mother  of  Samuel ;  they  are  hymns  bor- 
rowed from  the  earliest  liturgy  of  the  Christian 
communities.  The  ending  of  Matthew's  narrative 
is  intended  to  shield  Jesus,  as  it  were,  from  the 
popular  prejudice  that  "nothing  good  can  come 
out  of  Nazareth."  The  scene  of  Jesus  in  the 
Temple  and  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors  is  not 
without  precedents  in  the  Old  Testament.  Wit- 
ness Samuel's  precocious  wisdom  and  prophetical 
utterances,  or  what  the  historian  Josephus  relates 
of  himself,  even  though  his  was  but  an  ordinary 
talent.  * 

The  reader  who  has  followed  that  exposition 
of  mythological  exegesis  applied  to  the  Gospels, 
surely  thinks  that  its  upholders  are  resigned  to 
give  up  Christianity  altogether.  Against  such  a 
conclusion  Strauss  raises  a  protest.  "The  author," 
he  writes,  "is  aware  that  the  essence  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  is  perfectly  independent  of  his  crit- 
icism. The  supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  his 
miracles,  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  remain 
eternal  truths,  whatever  doubts  may  be  cast  on 
their  reality  as  historical  facts.    The  certainty  of 


See  his  Autobiography,  II. 


Modern  Opponents.  83 

this  can  alone  give  calmness  and  dignity  to  our 
criticism,  and  distinguish  it  from  the  naturalistic 
criticism  of  the  last  century,  the  design  of  which 
was,  with  the  historical  fact,  to  subvert  also  the 
religious  truth,  and  which  thus  necessarily  became 
frivolous."  *  Here  again,  Strauss  is  the  ancestor 
of  those  Hegelian  critics  who  in  our  days, leave 
to  philosophy  and  fiction  the  task  to  rebuild  what 
they  themselves  have  overthrown  in  the  name  of 
history,  t 


We  have  exposed  with  some  length  Strauss' 
mythical  system,  because  the  unbelieving  critics 
who  came  after  him  added  to  it  nothing  really 
essential.  Nowadays,  it  is  true,  some  speak  of  re- 
ligious idealization  of  history,  instead  of  myth; 
but  after  all,  the  result  is  the  same,  vis.,  to  deny 
all  historical  value  to  the  narratives  that  refer  to 
the  childhood  of  Jesus,  at  least  in  as  far  as  they 


*  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  30. 


t  "The  charm  of  these  Nativity  stories  does  not  depend 
on  their  historical  truth,  but  on  their  inner  significance. 
.  .  .  Since  all  these  ideas  are  true  and  remain  true,  we 
are  not  obliged  to  call  these  narratives  false,  even  though 
historically  speaking  they  are  not  in  keeping  with  reality." 
O.  HoLTZMANN,  Lebcti  Jesu,  p.  68. 


84  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

bear  a  supernatural  character.  But  contemporary 
critics  are  afraid  to  appear  to  be  led  by  prejudices 
of  a  doctrinal  kind,  as  in  the  time  of  Paulus  and 
Strauss :  this  is  why  they  pretend  to  abide  by  the 
study  of  the  texts  alone. 

On  the  other  hand,  and  precisely  for  that 
reason,  their  task  is  more  difficult  than  some  fifty 
years  ago,  owing  to  the  recent  reverse  of  senti- 
ment in  behalf  of  the  traditional  dates,  as  regards 
the  composition  of  the  Gospels,  How  can  we 
explain  that  within  so  few  years  the  Christian 
legend  came  to  be  formed,  and  especially  suc- 
ceeded in  being  accepted?  Renan  who  depends 
on  Strauss  to  a  large  extent,  although  he  is  not 
unwilling  now  and  then  to  borrow  from  Paulus, 
thought  that  the  working  out  of  which  the  "ideal 
legend"  originated,  took  place  during  the  thirty 
or  twenty  years  which  followed  immediately  the 
death  of  Jesus.  Even,  he  adds,  during  His  life- 
time, some  may  have  begun  to  ask  themselves  if 
He  was  not  born  of  a  Virgin;  at  all  events,  those 
who  looked  upon  Him  as  the  Messias  must  have 
held  for  certain,  even  then,  that  He  was  born  at 
Bethlehem.  * 


*  Life   of  Jesus   (transl.   by  Charles   E.   Wilbour,   New 
York,  1881),  pp.  40,  218. 


Modern  Opponents.  85 

These  conjectures  have  since  appeared  more 
worthy  of  a  novehst  than  of  a  critic.  It  is  to  the 
texts  themselves,  to  their  history  and  contents, 
that  scholars  nowadays  have  recourse,  there  to 
seek  for  the  means  of  gainsaying  the  truth  of 
the  narratives  which  those  texts  contain.  What 
processes  they  use  for  that  purpose,  we  shall  tell 
our  readers;  for  the  time  being,  our  only  aim 
will  be  to  grasp  and  set  forth  accurately  the  view 
of  our  adversaries. 

According  to  Professor  P.  W.  Schmiedel,  most 
probably  no  mention  of  the  supernatural  concep- 
tion was  made  in  the  primitive  writing,  of  which 
the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  made  use  in  com- 
posing his  first  chapters.  This  document-source 
began  certainly  with  the  genealogy  (Matt,  i  ^'"), 
which  was  joined  immediately  with  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  second  chapter;  and  it  is  precisely 
to  weld  more  closely  the  section  about  the  vir- 
ginal conception  (i  ^^"")  with  a  genealogy  which 
set  forth  Joseph  as  the  father  of  Jesus,  that  Matt. 
I  ^^  came  later  on  to  be  gradually  modified.  The 
earliest  reading  of  that  verse  was  probably: 
"Jacob  begot  Joseph  and  Joseph  begot  Jesus"; 
but  the  actual  reading,  now  commonly  received, 
"Jacob  begot  Joseph,  the  husband  of  Mary,  of 
whom  was  born  Jesus"  was  adopted,  after  passing 


86  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

through  an  intermediary  reading  "J^-c^^^  begot 
Joseph  and  Joseph,  to  whom  the  Virgin  Mary- 
was  espoused,  begot  Jesus."  This  last  reading, 
moreover,  is  attested  by  the  Syriac  version  re- 
cently found  at  Sinai.  * 

The  text  of  the  third  Gospel  is  still  more  em- 
barrassing, because  of  the  detailed  precision  of 
the  message  brought  to  Mary  by  the  Angel 
Gabriel.  Hamack  has  at  last  succeeded  in  get- 
ting the  better  of  it,  by  making  use  of  a  process 
which  has  not  even  the  merit  of  novelty:  as  he 
cannot  unravel  the  Gordian  knot,  he  simply  cuts 
it.f  Luke  probably  borrowed  from  Matthew 
(i  ^^'^^)  the  idea  of  the  supernatural  conception, 
which  he  introduced,  by  means  of  i  ^*'  ^^,  into  the 


*  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  Vol.  Ill,  Col.  2962. 

t  Zu  Luc  I  3*  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutest.  Wusen- 
schaft,  1901,  p.  S3 ;  Hillmann  and  Schmiedel  admit  also 
that  insertion,  which  Conybeare  calls  "a  pious  fraud."  On 
the  contrary,  A.  Hilgenfeld,  Die  Geburts  und  Kindheits- 
Geschichte  Jesu,  refutes  Harnack's  arguments  in  the 
Zeitschrift  fiir  wissetisch.  Thcologie,  1901,  pp.  184,  222;  cf. 
313-317-  J-  Haecke,  Die  Jungfrauen-Geburt  und  das  N.  T., 
has  recently  taken  up  the  whole  question  in  the  same  re- 
view, 1906,  pp.  18-26. — In  Loisy's  eyes,  Harnack  has  raised 
rather  than  answered  the  question.  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de 
Litter,  relig.,  1903,  p.  292.  Likewise  H.  Gunkel,  Zum  re- 
ligions-geschicht.  Verstdndnis  des  N.  T.,  sees  no  reason 
why  Luke  i  3*.  35  should  be  deemed  an  interpolation. 


Modern  Opponents.  87 

Jiidaeo-Christian  document  he  was  using.  Ac- 
cording to  Harnack,  the  insertion  of  these  two 
verses  seems  to  be  the  work  of  St.  Luke  himself ; 
other  critics,  however,  prefer  to  see  in  it  the  work 
of  a  reviser  who  came  after  the  EvangeHst :  they 
claim  to  have  found  witnesses  of  the  primitive 
reading  of  the  text.  Before  the  3d  century,  the  fol- 
lowers of  a  certain  Theodotus  quoted  Luke  (i  ^^) 
against  the  belief  in  Christ's  supernatural  concep- 
tion, and  this  fact  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the 
hypothesis  of  the  actual  reading  which  favors 
manifestly  that  belief.  Now  a  MS.  of  the  oldest 
Latin  translation  of  the  Gospels,  instead  of  the 
words  "How  shall  this  be  since  I  know  not  man?" 
has  the  words  that  are  read  in  verse  38  "Behold, 
the  handmaid  of  the  Lord :  be  it  done  to  me  ac- 
cording to  thy  word."  * 

This  addition  necessarily  called  for  another; 
i.  €.,  the  incidental  phrase,  (3  ^*)  "Being,  as  was 
supposed,  the  son  of  Joseph."  Hence,  according 
to  these  critics,  the  primitive  document  used  by 
St.  Luke  set  forth  Jesus  merely  as  invested  with 
the  Messianic  calling,  even  when  still  in  His 
Mother's  womb,  just  as  John  had  been  invested 
with  his  calling  of  Precursor.  H.  Holtzmann 
goes  even  farther :  in  his  eyes,  two  documents  may 

♦Cf.  CoNYBEARE,  in  the  Standard,  May  11,  1905. 


88  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

be  distinguished  in  the  third  Gospel:  (2^^'") — 
the  circumcision,  the  presentation  and  Jesus  in  the 
midst  of  the  doctors — would  be  of  Ebionite  ori- 
gin; whilst  the  first  part,  (i  and  2  ^"^°) — the  an- 
nunciation both  of  Jesus  and  of  John,  the  nativity 
— is  inspired  mostly  by  the  idea  of  the  super- 
natural conception.  Luke  then  idealized  an  Ebion- 
ite narrative.* 

As  a  result  of  these  additions  and  corrections, 
several  incoherencies  necessarily  crept  into  the 
actual  text  of  the  Gospels,  Even  though  these 
Gospels  teach  explicitly  the  Virgin-Birth,  yet  all 
the  personages  who  appear  in  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive, even  Mary,  speak  and  act  as  if  Jesus  was 


*  Cf.  Hand-Comm.  sum  N.  T.,  Die  Synoptiker,  pp.  37-44. 

P.  W.  Schmiedel  also  admits  that  the  first  two  chapters 
of  Luke  lack  unity,  and  holds  as  probable  that  the  second 
is  older  than  the  first;  we  may  even  suppose,  he  adds, 
that  at  the  beginning  neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  had  the 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  and  both,  like  Mark,  took  up  their 
narrative  with  John's  baptism.  The  discourses  of  Peter  pre- 
served in  the  Acts  (i  22,  10  37)  would  make  it  quite  sure  that 
the  Apostolic  Catechesis  began  with  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Strauss  (p.  95)  had  already  brought  to  task 
the  Rationalists  of  his  time  for  denying  the  authenticity  of 
those  texts,  so  as  to  get  rid  more  easily  of  their  contents. 

According  to  Wellhausen,  Das  Evangel.  Lucae  uhersetzt 
und  erkldrt,  1904,  the  virginal  conception  is  not  mentioned 
at  all  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  third  Gospel,  and  came 
into  the  first  chapter  by  way  of  addition. 


Modern  Opponents.  89 

the  son  of  Joseph,  the  carpenter.  His  brethren, 
nay  His  Mother  first  do  not  beHeve  in  Him:  an 
attitude  which  cannot  be  accounted  for,  had  His 
infancy  been  accompanied  with  all  the  wonders 
actually  recorded.  That  conviction  endured  so 
long  that  it  inspired  an  apocryphal  writing  of  the 
end  of  the  2d  century,*  in  which  the  Apostle 
Thomas  is  represented  as  the  twin-brother  of 
Jesus.  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  or  in  other 
words  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  seems  to  have  been 
written  from  the  same  point  of  view.  The  judges 
of  Jesus  taunt  Him  for  being  bom  of  adultery; 
and  the  author  merely  repels  the  charge,  by  saying 
that  Joseph  and  Mary  were  joined  in  legitimate 
wedlock. 

Loisy  thinks  that  this  is  to  handle  the  texts  in 
a  most  arbitrary  fashion,  and  looks  upon  Har- 
nack's  arguments  as  too  weak  to  warrant  his  con- 
clusions. Personally  he  will  not  deny  the  literary 
unity  of  the  narratives  Luke  and  Matthew  have 
left  us,  regarding  the  Infancy  and  particularly 
regarding  the  Virgin-Birth.  The  Evangelists 
pictured  to  themselves  the  things  just  as  we  do 
now;  they  believed  that  Jesus  had  been  super- 
naturally  conceived,  because  this  was  already  the 


*  Acts  of  Judas-Thomas. 


90  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

faith  of  the  Church  *  This  dogma,  Herzog-  adds, 
had  made  its  appearance  in  Christian  conscious- 
ness, about  the  year  80 :  and  the  Gospels,  in  which 
it  is  recorded,  date  from  the  end  of  the  first  cen- 
tury, f 

Then  too,  neither  the  literary  unity  of  the  nar- 
rative, nor  its  tone  of  sincerity  allows  us  to  infer 
the  historical  reality  of  the  events,  as  is  plainly 
stated  by  Loisy  in  these  words :  "The  narratives 
of  the  childhood  of  Christ  are  for  the  historian 
only  an  expression  and  an  assertion  of  faith  in 
the  Messiah,  that  faith  which  is  affirmed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and  transfig- 
ured the  memories  of  the  Apostles,  which  is  also 
affirmed  and  developed  in  Paul,  and  then  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  This  faith  is,  as  it  were,  the 
reply  made  by  the  generations  of  believers  in  suc- 
cession, to  the  proposition  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus ; 
it  increases,  yet  remains  the  same,  like  an  echo 
which,  reverberating  from  mountain  to  mountain, 
becomes  more  sonorous  the  further  it  travels  from 
its  point  of  origin."  j 


*  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter,  relig.,  1903,  pp.  290-292. 

t  Ibid.,  1907,  p.   121. 

tThe  Gospel  of  the  Church  (English  translation),  p.  50. 
This  is  also  the  stand  taken  by  Gunkel,  Zurn  religions- 
geschichtlichen  Verstdndnis  des  N.  T.   (1903),  p.  69.     The 


Modern  Opponents.  91 

Is  the  tradition  recorded  in  the  first  Gospel 
anterior  to  that  recorded  in  the  third?  Did  the 
belief  in  Christ's  supernatural  conception  orig- 
inate in  Hellenic  surroundings  rather  than  in 
Jndaeo-Christian  communities  ?  These  two  points, 
which  are  somewhat  related,  are  disputed.*     In 

question  has  already  been  treated  from  the  same  point  of 
view  and  on  the  whole  with  similar  conclusions  by  P. 
LoBSTEiN,  Die  Lehre  von  der  iibeniatiirl.  Geburt  Christi, 
published  originally  in  French  in  the  Revue  de  Thiol,  et  de 
Phil.  (1890),  p.  205,  and  recently  translated  into  English 
under  the  title  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  1903.  This  is 
perhaps  the  most  complete  work  ever  written  on  that  sub- 
ject. Since  then  Hillmann,  Die  Kindheitsg.  Jcsu  nach 
Luk.,  1891 ;  and  Soltau,  Die  Gehurtsgeschichte  Jesu  Christi, 
1902,  have  also  appeared. 

*The  dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth  is  rather  of  Hellenic 
origin,  according  to  Hillmann,  op.  cit.,  p.  231 ;  H.  Holtz- 
MANN,  Lehrbuch  der  Neutestam.  Theologie,  1897,  Vol.  I, 
p.  414;  UsENER,  Religionsgesch.  Untersuchungen,  1889,  p. 
69,  and  in  Cheyne's  Encyclopctdia  Biblica,  col.  3350; 
ScHMiEDEL,  ibid.,  col.  2963;  B.  Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ, 
(English  transl),  Vol.  I,  p.  229.  H.  Gunkel,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
36,  63,  70,  would  admit  rather  a  Babylonian  origin,  whilst 
he  insists  at  the  same  time  on  the  tendency  of  Judseo- 
Christian  surroundings  to  welcome  that  idea :  a  view  which 
appeals  to  T.  K.  Cheyne  in  his  Bible  Problems;  in  fine, 
judging  from  the  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter,  relig.,  1903, 
p.  292,  A.  LoiSY  favors  the  Hellenic  origin. 

On  the  contrary,  A.  Harnack,  H.  of  Dogma,  Vol.  I,  p. 
105,  cf.  p.  100,  and  P.  LoBSTEiN,  op.  cit.,  pp.  y^,  seq.,  main- 
tain that  the  belief  arose  in  Judaeo-Christian  surroundings, 
and  is  based  above  all  on  Isaias  7  1*. 


92  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

this  conjuncture,  textual  criticism  calls  for  the 
help  of  higher  criticism;  i.  e.,  of  that  criticism 
which  is  bent  on  determining  with  accuracy  the 
sense  and  bearing  of  the  contents  of  the  texts.  De- 
pending on  the  comparative  study  of  the  Gospels, 
and,  in  general,  of  the  New  Testament,  the  schol- 
ars of  whom  we  are  speaking,  feel  justified  in 
drawing  the  following  conclusions  of  which  I 
borrow  the  summary  from  Otto  Pfleiderer  *,  be- 
cause I  think  it  expresses  quite  accurately  the 
views  that  are  now  current  among  liberal 
critics. 

(a)  The  oldest  belief  was  that  the  man  Jesus 
had  been  raised  through  adoption  to  the  dignity 
of  Son  of  God.  Christians  first  thought  that  this 
Sonship  had  begun  with  the  resurrection;  this  is 
the  Christology  which  betrays  itself  in  the  dis- 
courses of  Apostles  recorded  in  the  first  chapters 
of  the  Acts  and  in  the  earliest  writings  of  St. 
Paul.f  Later  on,  Christ's  divine  investiture  was 
referred  to  the  day  of  His  baptism,  and  the  Chris- 
tians of  that  time  meant  to  convey  this  thought 
through  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 


*  The  Early  Christian  Conception  of  Christ  (English 
transl.),  1903,  pp.  16  and  ff. ;  cf.  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the 
Church,  pp.  48-49. 

t  Acts  2  30-36,  5  30-31^  13  33 ;  Rotmns,  I  4, 


Modern  Opponents.  93 

shape  of  a  dove,  and  through  the  voice  from 
Heaven  which  authoritatively  presents  Jesus  as 
God's  beloved  Son.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  does 
not  go  beyond  this  second  step  of  the  primitive 
idea.  The  doctrine  of  a  God  who  saves  the  world 
through  His  Chosen  One,  His  Lieutenant,  His 
Christ,  His  Son,  is  borrowed  from  Jewish  Mes- 
sianism;  and  the  latter  itself  was  a  mere  expres- 
sion of  the  theocratic  idea  which  pervades  all  the 
Old  Testament.* 

(b)  Over  against  this  view  and  in  a  par- 
allel direction,  as  it  were,  there  arose  gradually 
another  view  in  the  earliest  Ethnico-Christian 
communities ;  it  was  spread  in  their  midst  by  Paul 
of  Tarsus,  who  had  brought  over  its  elements 
from  the  rabbinical  schools  of  Palestine.  He 
acknowledges  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  presence 
of  a  spiritual  and  personal  being,  which  existed 
in  Heaven  before  He  became  man.  The  Apostle 
does  not  yet  look  upon  Him  as  God,  but  he  sees 
in  Him  the  first-begotten  of  the  Father,  (His 
image,  His  own  Son),  the  human  ideal:  a  second 
Adam,  who  came  down  from  Heaven,  instead  of 
being  taken  from  the  earth,  as  the  first  Adam  was. 
He  appeared  in  the  flesh,  to  deliver  us  from  sin, 


*//  Kings  7^^;  Ps.  131  ^i;  Psalms  of  Solomon. 


94  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

from  the  Law  and  from  death.  That  idea,  to 
which  a  few  new  additions  are  made  both  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  in  that  to  the  He- 
brews, reaches  its  full  development  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  where  under  the  influence  of  Judgeo- Alex- 
andrian theosophy  the  Messias  becomes  nothing 
short  of  a  divine  Being  incarnate.  Besides,  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  preexistence  does  not  at  all 
consider  the  human  origin  of  Jesus.  Nowhere  is 
He  exhibited  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  as  the  Son 
of  a  Virgin;  nay,  there  are  details  that  positively 
enable  us  to  think  that  not  a  few  believed  that  He 
belonged  to  the  race  of  David,  according  to  the 
ordinary  laws  of  natural  descendance. 

(c)  Later  on,  during  the  2d  century,  there  was 
a  synthesis  of  these  two  views.  H  Christ  was  the 
Son  of  God  before  He  was  Man,  why  seek  for 
Him  a  man  as  His  father?  The  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin-Birth  became  the  popular  formula  used 
by  Christians  to  affirm  His  altogether  divine 
origin.  Jesus  is  surely  the  Son  of  God,  no  longer 
in  a  moral  sense,  nor  simply  because  of  His  meta- 
physical being;  He  becomes  so,  even  from  a 
physical  point  of  view,  because  His  human  gen- 
eration is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.*    Accord- 


*  Cf.  A.  LoiSY,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church,  p.  49. 


Modern  Opponents.  95 

ing  to  Holtzmann*,  in  this  particular  case  the 
blending  of  these  two  views  was  unskilfully  made : 
men  tried  to  combine  things  that  are  incom- 
patible. The  synthesis  apparently  took  place  and 
was  actually  received  in  Ethnico-Christian  sur- 
roundings, although  it  was  prepared  by  Jewish 
writings,  like  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Apoca- 
lypse of  Esdras.  At  all  events,  these  scholars 
add,  the  belief  in  the  Virgin-Birth  closely  de- 
pends on  Greek  Mythology,  as  well  as  on  the 
religious  literature  of  the  Jews ;  whilst  it  profited 
by  the  rabbinical  speculations  about  the  preexist- 
ence  of  the  Messias,  and  perhaps  too  by  a  cur- 
rent exegesis  which  applied  Isaias,  7  ^*,  to  the 
Messias,  it  is  also  indebted,  and  greatly  indebted, 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Greeks  who  were  wont  to 
deify  their  great  men  and  to  ascribe  to  their  heroes 
divine  ancestry. 

For  Herzog  this  solution  is  altogether  too 
complex.  His  solution  can  rightly  claim  to  be, 
if    not    original,    at    least    simple    and    radical. y 


*  Lehrhuch  der  N.  T.  Theologie,  1897,  Vol.  I,  pp.  415, 
376,  381 ;  Vol.  11,  p.  458. 

t  Those  who  may  have  read  H.  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
409-415,  and  SoLTAu,  Die  Geburtsgeschichte  Jesu  Christi, 
1902,  will  easily  acknowledge  that  Herzog's  thesis  has  not 
even  the  merit  of  novelty. 


g6  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

These  are  its  fundamental  points.  The  Hebrew 
mind  was  adverse  to  the  idea  of  virginal  concep- 
tion, and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  idea  was  never 
a  part  of  the  Messianic  idea  of  the  Jewish  people, 
either  in  the  prophetic  or  the  apocalyptic  school. 
"We  can  unhesitatingly  affirm  that  this  belief  was 
not  the  work  of  the  Judaeo-Christian  Church. 
.  .  .  It  was  the  product  of  the  Hellenic  mind. 
When  the  Christians  of  Gentile  birth  were  told 
that  Jesus  was  both  the  Messias  and  the  Son  of 
God,  they  did  not  receive  these  two  notions  ex- 
actly in  the  same  manner.  .  .  .  True,  the 
faithful  became  soon  accustomed  to  call  Jesus, 
Christ — which  is  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  term,  Messiah — but  that  word  remained 
for  them  a  mysterious  and  sealed  formula.  Such 
was  not  the  case  with  the  title,  Son  of  God.  On 
this  subject  the  Christians  who  were  born  in 
Heathenism  gave  free  scope  to  their  imagination. 
On  hearing  that  Jesus,  the  Savior  of  the  World, 
was  also  the  Son  of  God,  those  men  who  had  been 
brought  up,  from  their  infancy,  in  the  legends  of 
Paganism,  could  not  but  recall  the  poetic  narra- 
tives with  which  their  souls  had  been  filled.  Son 
of  God!  But  Greece  and  Rome  had  possessed 
several  of  them.  All  those  who  had  surpassed 
their  fellowmen  by  their  strength  and  power  and 


Modern  Opponents.  gy 

genius,  had  they  not  surpassed  them  in  their  birth 
also?  Leaving  aside  the  warriors  of  the  heroic 
ages,  was  it  not  a  common  report  that  Pythagoras, 
Plato,  Scipio,  Augustus  had  had  a  god  for  their 
father?"  * 

Evidently  mythologists  nowadays  are  not  so 
scrupulous  as  Strauss :  with  the  view  to  increase 
the  number  of  men  who  were  said  to  have  been 
born  of  a  woman  and  of  a  god,t  they  have  not 
only  dived  carefully  into  all  the  classical  authors, 
they  have  also  consulted  the  literature  of  the  Far 
East.  It  is  especially  in  the  Buddhistic  books  that 
some  scholars  claim  to  have  found  a  certain  num- 
ber of  specified  and  unquestionable  cases  of 
virgin-birth.  Quite  recently  Albert  Edmunds 
has  published  a  book  on  this  topic  :|  in  his  eyes 
the  Christian  dogma  was  borrowed  from  some 


*  La  Conception  Virginale  du  Christ,  in  the  Revue  d'Hist. 
et  de  Litter.  Relig.,  1907,  pp.  121-123.  Besides  the  author 
admits  that  Christians  later  on  appealed  to  the  text  of 
Isaias  7  1*,  which  they  misunderstood. 

tCf.  P.  RoHRBACH,  Geboren  von  der  J ungf rati,  .iS^. 

t  Buddhist  and  Christian  Gospels,  Tokj  o,  1905. 

On  the  same  subject  our  readers  may  be  referred  to 
Seydel,  Evangelium  von  Jesu,  1882;  Buddhalegende,  1884; 
Das  dlteste  Evangelium,  1897.  W.  Bousset,  Theolog.  Rund- 
schau, Feb.  1899,  has  shown  the  "partial  and  even  out- 
landish" character  of  those  publications. 


98  The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Eastern  religion;  and,  probably,  the  Buddhistic 
legend  of  Queen  Maya,  who  saw  in  a  dream 
Buddha  entering  her  womb  in  the  shape  of  a 
white  elephant,  there  to  become  incarnate,  is  at 
the  basis  of  Luke's  narrative.  Finally,  the  author 
is  inclined  to  appeal  rather  to  Persia,  as  it  seems 
that  the  Avesta  is  exceptionally  rich  on  the  sub- 
ject of  virgin-mothers. 

Besides,  an  Anglican  Canon  of  Rochester,  Pro- 
fessor T.  K.  Cheyne,  aimed  in  a  sensational  book, 
at  diffusing  among  the  public  at  large  the  radical 
conclusions  of  the  German  critical  school  against 
the  historical  authority  of  the  Gospel  of  the  In- 
fancy.* At  the  same  time,  another  Oxford 
scholar,  Fred.  Conybeare,  sent  to  The  Standard 
a  most  bitter  denunciation  of  the  traditional  senti- 
ment regarding  Christ's  Virgin-Birth. f  How 
disastrous  such  examples  coming  from  high  places 


*  Bible  Problems,  1905 ;  and  with  the  same  tendencies 
Beeby,  Doctrinal  Significance  of  a  Miraculous  Birth,  in 
the  Hibbert  Journal,  Octob.,  1903.  A  similar  attempt  to 
vulgarize  in  France  the  same  conclusions  has  been  made 
by  GuiGNEBERT^  Manucl  d'Hist.  Ancienne  du  Christianisme, 
Les  Origines,  1906,  pp.  163-169. 

t  The  Standard,  May  11,  1905,  p.  5.  This  article  has 
been  summed  up  in  French  by  Abbe  Houtin,  La  Question 
Biblique  au  XX^'ne  Sieclc,  ch.  xiii,  in  a  tone  which,  to  say 
the  least,  is  offensive  to  Christian  faith. 


Modern  Opponents.  99 

were,  became  soon  manifest.  One  of  the  most 
alarming  symptoms  of  that  destructible  influence 
is  the  declaration  published  at  the  beginning  of 
1906  by  one  hundred  and  one  members  of  the 
Anglican  clergy,  and  signed  by  almost  two  thou- 
sand clergymen  both  in  England  and  the  United 
States.*  Now,  one  of  the  topics  for  which  free 
inquiry  is  claimed,  is  precisely  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  narrative  about  the  conception  of 
Jesus. 

These  bold  views,  it  is  true,  have  called  forth 
refutations,  chiefly  to  America,  from  conservative 
Protestants. t     The  most  solid  is  perhaps  that  of 


*A  Declaration  on  Biblical  Criticistn  by  172^  Clergymen 
of  the  Anglican  Communion,  etc.,  edited  by  H.  Handley, 
M.  A,,  March  1906. 

t  The  authority  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  especially 
as  to  what  pertains  to  Christ's  Virgin-Birth,  has  been 
maintained  among  Protestants  (a)  in  English-speaking 
countries,  by  A.  Wright,  A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in 
Greek,  1903,  Introd.,  p.  xli;  Gore,  Dissertations  on  Subjects 
connected  with  the  Incarnation,  pp.  12-40,  and  also  in  his 
Bampton  Lectures,  1891,  p.  78;  then  too  in  Church  Times, 
1902,  Dec.  24;  1903,  Feb.  6;  in  Christian  World,  1901,  Dec. 
26,  etc. ;  SwETE,  The  Apostles'  Creed,  ch.  iv ;  W.  Ramsay, 
Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem?,  1898;  Randolph,  The 
Virgin  Birth  of  Our  Lord,  1903 ;  Sanday,  The  Virgin  Birth 
of  Our  Lord  J.  C,  in  the  Christian  World  Pulpit,  Feb.  4, 
1903 ;  Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Christ,  1905,  p.  191 ;  The 
Standard,  May  i6,  1905;  The  Daily  Mail,  August  i  and  8, 


lOO         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 


Dr.  Briggs,*  the  purport  of  which  is  that  the  be- 
lief in  Christ's  Virgin-Birth  is  above  historical 
criticism;  and  although  the  Christian  Church 
should  not  strike  out  this  article  of  her  Creed,  she 
is  not  bound,  on  the  other  hand,  to  present  it  as  es- 
sential to  the  faith  and  to  the  religious  life  of  indi- 
viduals.    He  concludes  by  saying  that  believers 

igos;  Knowling,  Our  Lord's  Virgin  Birth  and  the  Crit- 
icism of  to-day,  1903 ;  Macken,  in  Princeton  Theolog.  Review, 
1906,  pp.  37-81 ;  Cooke,  in  Methodist  Review,  1906,  pp.  248- 
261 ;  James  Okr,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  1907.  In  the 
American  Journal  of  Theology,  a  symposium  has  been 
opened  on  this  subject,  January,  1906,  pp.  1-30:  it  begins 
with  an  article  by  Warfield,  whose  conchision  is  that  the 
Virgin-Birth  is  demanded  by  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
same  review  had  already  given,  July  and  October,  1902, 
two  articles  of  T.  Allen  Hoben^  The  Virgin  Birth. 

(b)  In  Germany,  by  Hase,  Geschichte  Jesu  (1891  ed.), 
p.  280,  he  refutes  the  objections  raised  by  Strauss,  but 
partly  admits  the  mythological  explanation;  Resch,  Das 
Kindheitsevangclium,  1897;  Hilgenfeld,  loc.  cit.;  Zahn, 
Das  Apost.  Symb.,  1893,  p.  57 ;  Das  Evangel,  des  Matthdus, 
1905,  P-  66;  Grutzmacher,  Die  Jtmgfraugeburt,  1906. 

(c)  In  France — or  rather  in  French — by  Godet,  Com- 
ment, sur  S.  Luc,  Vol.  I,  pp.  186-196  (English  translation 
from  the  second  French  edition,  N.  Y.,  1881,  pp.  41-104)  ; 
Introd.  au  N.  T.,  1900,  Vol.  II,  p.  483 ;  Roehrich,  La  Com- 
position des  Evangiles,  1897,  pp.  81-89;  Bovon,  Theologie 
du  N.  T.,  p.  214. 

*  North  American  Review,  June,  1906,  "Criticism  and 
the  Dogma  of  the  Virgin  Birth." 


Modern  Opponents.  loi 

are  free  to  refuse  a  positive  assent  to  this  dogma 
and  especially  to  decline  to  defend  it  in  the  field 
of  controversy. 

Until  these  last  years,  Catholics  had  not  been 
led  to  treat  the  subject  from  an  apologetic  point 
of  view;  recent  attacks,  however,  have  prompted 
them  to  publish,  in  rapid  succession,  several 
studies  on  this  topic.  Some  of  these  studies  make 
it  their  chief  point  to  prove  that  the  first  two 
chapters  of  St.  Matthew  and  of  St.  Luke  deserve, 
just  as  well  as  the  other  parts  of  the  Gospels,  to 
be  looked  upon  as  history  and  indeed  truthful 
history;  the  others  show  how  arbitrary  and  even 
impossible  are  the  explanations  given  by  myth- 
ologists.* 


*J.  M.  Lagrange,  in  the  Revue  Biblique,  1895,  p.  160; 
Le  Recif  dc  I'Enfance  de  Jesus  dans  S.  Luc,  ibid.,  1899,  p. 
618;  1906,  p.  502;  V.  Rose,  Etudes  sur  les  Evangiles,  p.  39, 
(English  transl.,  p.  41);  M.  Lepin,  Jesus,  Messie  et  Fils 
de  Dieu,  1906,  3d  edit.,  p.  55,  and  in  the  Diet,  de  la  Bible 
(Vigouroux),  Vol.  IV,  col.  1386,  1414;  V.  McNabb,  5"/. 
Mark's  Witness  to  the  Virgin  Birth,  in  the  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies,  April  1907 ;  E.  Mangenot,  La  Concep- 
tion Virginale  de  Jesus,  in  the  Revue  de  I'lnstitut  Cath.  de 
Paris,  May-June  1907;  L.  de  Grandmaison,  La  Conception 
Virginale  du  Christ,  in  the  Etudes,  May  20,  1907,  p  503; 
O.  Bardenhewer,  Die  Geburt  Christi  aus  der  Jungfrau  und 
die  moderne  Theologie,  in  Monatsbldtter  fur  den  Kath- 
olischen  Religionsunterricht,  1907,  pp.  84-91;  S.  Protin, 
La  Conception  Virginale  du  Christ,  in  the  Revue  Augustin., 


I02         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

We  have  just  set  forth  all  that  has  been  urged 
by  independent  critics  against  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy;  and  we  have  not  consciously  lessened  in 
any  way  the  point  and  cogency  either  of  each  one 
of  their  objections  taken  separately  or  of  all  taken 
as  a  whole.  This  we  had  to  do,  were  it  merely  to 
force  our  opponents  to  give  up  once  for  all  the 
ever  ready  but  stale  accusation  that  Catholic  apol- 
ogists hide  from  the  public  the  true  state  and  bear- 
ing of  those  questions.*  That  believers  should  not 
take  alarm  at  all  that  display  of  erudition,  and 
still  less  be  overawed  by  the  self-confident  bold- 
ness of  the  negations,  a  somewhat  close  and  accu- 
rate study  of  the  problems  will  sufficiently  prove. 


July  15,  1907,  p.  5 ;  E.  Vacandard,  Saint  Marc  et  la  Con- 
ception Virginale,  in  the  Revue  Prat.  d'Apolog.,  July  1907, 
p.  412;  P.  Camuset,  ibid.,  Sept.  i,  1907,  p.  701;  H.  Lesetee, 
La  Vierge  Mere,  in  the  Revue  du  Clerge  Francois,  July  15, 
1907,  p.  113. 

*  The  same  charge  is  made  by  Abbe  Houtin,  op.  cit.,  p. 
242,  note  I,  when,  speaking  of  these  objections,  he  writes 
"that  now  theologians  are  almost  the  only  ones  who  do 
not  know  them,  because  they  are  unwilling  to  know  them." 
He  knows  them  indeed,  but  it  is  easy  to  see  he  has  drawn 
his  knowledge  from  newspapers. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     103 
CHAPTER  IV. 

DETAILED  CRITICISM  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

Shocked  by  the  supernatural  character  of  the 
narratives  about  the  origin  of  Jesus,  independent 
critics  first  thought  that  the  best  means  for  them 
to  subdue,  as  it  were,  these  embarrassing  texts, 
was  flatly  to  deny  their  authentic  character.  Some 
writers — who  are  openly  boasting  that  they  accept 
only  well-ascertained  facts — are  not  slow  to  dis- 
credit beforehand  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy.  They 
look  on  it  as  a  latter  addition.  Why?  Because 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  mtdst  have  begun,  like 
St.  Mark,  with  the  preaching  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist.* 

Strauss  has  already  treated  this  conjecture  as 
it  deserves,  when  he  writes  f  that  it  is  an  "un- 
critical assumption."  True,  the  copy  of  St.  Mat- 
thew adopted  by  the  Ebionites  began  with  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist;  but  St.  Epiphanius, 
who  gives  us  this  information,   adds  that  they 


*J.  Haecker,  Die  Jungfrauen-Gehurt  und  das  N.  T.  in 
the  Zeitschr.  fiir  wissenchaf.  Theologie,  1906,  p.  26,  starts 
frankly  his  inquiry  about  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the 
Virgin-birth,  by  rejecting  a  priori  the  supernatural  ex- 
planation, because  it  implies  a  miracle.  Cf.  Renan,  Life 
of  Jesus,  Introduction. 

t  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  95. 
9 


I04         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

had  done  away  with  the  foregoing  verses,  because 
these  verses  were  plainly  opposed  to  their  own 
views  regarding  Christ's  human  generation.* 
Then  too,  he  observes  that  the  moderate  follow- 
ers of  this  sect,  those  whom  he  calls  Nazarenes, 
made  use  of  a  text  that  was  most  complete;  the 
only  point  he  does  not  know  is  whether  or  not 
they  have  retained  the  initial  genealogy,  which 
descends  from  Abraham  down  to  Christ,  f  What 
follows  is  still  more  significant.  The  same  St. 
Epiphanius  assures  us  that  Cerinthus  and  Car- 
pocrates  appealed  to  the  genealogy  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, as  a  proof  that  Jesus  had  been  begotten 
by  Joseph. I  Again  we  learn  from  Eusebius  that 
the  Judaizer  Synmachus  did  the  same.§  St. 
Jerome  also  tells  us  that  the  first  chapters  of  St. 


*  UapaKdipavre^  yap  napa  rw  MaTdalu  y€vea7.nyiac,  apxovrat  Trjv 
apxvv  noieiadai,  uf  npoeiKov,  ?.eyovTE^,  on  'EyeveTo,  (priaiv^  kv  raiq 
^/iepaig  'UpMov.  ..Adv.  Hares.,  xxx,  14;  cf.  13. 

f  Adv.  Hceres.,  xxix,  9.  St.  Epiphanius  mentions  that 
difference  of  attitude  as  a  sample  of  the  inconsistency  of 
the  Ebionites. 

%Ibid.,  xxx,  14. 

^Hist.  Eccl.,  vi,  17.  True,  the  meaning  of  Eusebius  is 
equivocal ;  Rufinus,  Nicephorus  and  others  adopt  the  mean- 
ing we  give  in  the  text;  Henry  of  Valois  rejects  that 
interpretation,  but  it  is  easy  to  see  how  intricate  his  own 
explanations  are.     (Migne,  P.  G.,  xx,  col.  559.) 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     105 

Matthew  were  contained  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews.* 

Whatever  may  be  the  value  of  these  testimo- 
nies owing  to  the  distance  of  the  witnesses  from 
the  events  themselves,  if  they  are  used  at  all,  they 
must  be  wholly  retained.  There  is  no  2d  or  3d 
century  text  that  allows  us  to  affirm  that,  at  the 
beginning,  the  first  Gospel  did  not  contain  the 
first  two  chapters.  All  the  information  respecting 
this  point  dates  from  the  4th  century,  and  tells  us 
of  subtraction,  not  of  addition.  Tatian's  Diates- 
saron,  which  belongs  to  the  2d  century,  passes  by 
the  genealogy  of  St.  Matthew,  simply  because 
that  omission  is  quite  in  keeping  with  the  method 
of  the  author:  his  purpose  is  not  to  give  the 
whole  text  of  the  Four  Gospels,  but  to  compose 
a  narrative  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  drawn  literally 
from  the  canonical  writings.  Again,  the  gene- 
alogy of  St.  Luke  also  is  absent  from  the  Diates- 
saron,  and  yet,  to  my  knowledge,  nobody  has  ever 
argued  from  that  fact,  that  Tatian  was  unac- 


*De  Viris  III.,  iii;  Comment,  in  Matt.,  ii,  5,  15,  23;  in 
Isaiam-,  xi,  i ;  cf.  Zahn,  Geschichte  des  Neutesf.  Kanons, 
ii,  1891,  p.  686,  whose  conclusions  have  nothing  to  fear  at 
all  from  their  a  priori  and  most  unsatisfactory  criticism  by 
E.  Hennecke,  Neutest.  Apokrypyhen,  1904,  pp.  15,  17. 


io6         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

quainted  with  that  genealogy  or  excluded  it  as 
unauthentic* 

Some  have  observed  that  in  several  MSS.  the 
eighteenth  verse  of  St.  Matthew's  first  chapter 
begins  with  uncial  letters,  or  again  with  letters 
written  in  red  lead:  even  several  of  those  MSS. 
have  at  that  verse  these  words:  "Incipit  evan- 
gelium  secundum  Matthccum."  f  Is  this  not  a 
trace  of  the  primitive  condition  of  the  texts  when 
the  Gospel  began  with  the  words :  "Christi  autem 
generatio  .  .  .  "?  This  fact  has  been  ac- 
counted for  satisfactorily.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  in  several  churches  the  genealogy  was  not  a 
part  of  the  public  reading;  so  that  as  far  as  the 
liturgical  usage  was  concerned,  the  first  Gospel 
began  with  the  narrative  of  the  Nativity. | 


*  The  copy  of  the  Arabian  translation,  to  be  found  in 
the  Vatican  Library,  gives  the  two  genealogies  at  the  end 
of  the  codex.  Cf.  Ciasca,  Tatiani  Evangeliorum  Harmonia 
Arabice,  Rome,  1888;  Preface. 

t  For  instance,  Y  and  Z,  according  to  J.  Wordsworth ; 
these  two  Latin  MSS.  are  comparatively  recent,  and  date 
from  the  7th  and  8th  centuries. 

$  Judging  from  the  tone  of  the  text,  does  it  not  seem  as 
if  St.  Luke's  Gospel  originally  began  with  the  third  chap- 
ter? And  yet  we  know  from  the  prologue,  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  first  chapter,  that  the  third  Gospel  has  always 
been  as  it  is  now. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     107 

Again,  even  supposing — which  we  do  not  be- 
lieve— that  the  genealogy  was  a  kind  of  prologue 
subsequently  added  to  the  work  of  the  Evangelist, 
the  attitude  of  the  first  Gospel  toward  Christ's 
supernatural  conception  would  remain  unchanged, 
since  it  is  in  the  following  section  (i  ^*"^^),  that 
His  birth  from  the  Holy  Ghost  is  explicitly  stated. 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  almost  all  scholars  now 
grant  that  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  as  related 
in  St.  Matthew,  makes  up  a  perfectly  connected 
literary  whole.  Did  we  wish  to  disjoint  it,  we 
would  be  obliged  to  do  away  with  a  certain  num- 
ber of  transitions  that  can  hardly  be  ascribed 
to  an  interpolator.*  This  being  the  case,  the 
attack  is  directed  against  the  homogeneous  char- 
acter of  the  contents;  the  unity  of  that  piece,  we 
are  told,  is  merely  exterior  and  superficial;  we 
have  here  two  documents  of  different  ages  and 
meanings,  placed  side  by  side.  In  order  that  the 
narrative  might  be  welded  more  or  less  skillfully 
with  the  preceding  genealogy,  the  primitive  docu- 
ment had  to  be  retouched,  and  this  was  actually 


*  Especially    i^^;    2^-^^-^^;   3 1.     Cf.    Hawkins,   Hora 
Synopticce,  pp.  4-7. 


io8         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

done.  In  fact,  the  last  verse  of  the  genealogy  pre- 
sents, in  the  ancient  MSS.,  various  readings  that 
are  not  without  their  significance,  inasmuch  as 
they  imply  that  the  text  now  received  does  not 
represent  the  original,  redaction. 

The  chief,  or  rather  only  testimony,  to  which 
an  appeal  is  made  in  behalf  of  this  view,  is  a  pecu- 
liar reading  of  the  MS.  of  the  Syriac  translation 
of  the  Gospels  found  at  Mount  Sinai  in  1894.* 
At  that  time,  some  writers,  more  anxious  to  take 
up  arms  against  the  dogmas  of  the  faith  than  to 
find  out  and  settle  a  critical  text  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, told  the  public  at  large  that  an  ancient 
record  had  been  discovered  that  would  upset  al- 
together the  traditional  story  of  the  origin  of 
Jesus.f  And  now,  after  ten  years'  controversy, 
the  most  decided  opponents  of  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  have  to  con- 


*  About  that  discovery,  cf.  the  Etudes  Religieuses,  Janu- 
ary 15,  1895,  Vol.  LXIX,  p.  119,  and  Jacquier,  Histoire  des 
Litres  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Vol.  II,  p.  496.  The  reader 
may  find  a  good  summary  of  the  question  in  Holzzey,  Der 
Neuentdeckte  Codex  Syrus  Sina'iticus,  Munich,  1896,  pp. 
52-58. 

fRead,  for  instance,  the  English  periodical,  The  Acad- 
emy, from  November  17,  1904,  to  June  24,  1895. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     109 

fess   that   the    discovery    has    left    the    question 
untouched.* 

What,  then,  did  that  so-called  Sinaitic  version 
contain?  The  sixteenth  verse  of  the  first  chapter 
of  St.  Matthew  reads  as  follows:  "Joseph,  to 
whom  the  Virgin  Mary  was  espoused,  begot 
Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ."  It  is  remarkable 
that  Joseph  is  not  called  here  as  in  the  Received 
Text,  "the  husband  of  Mary,"  but  "he  to  whom 
the  Virgin  Mary  was  espoused."  Then  a  few 
lines  below,  the  Angel  says  to  him,  "She  shall 
bring  thee  forth  a  son"  (21),  and  this  the  Evan- 
gelist also  repeats,  when  he  writes :  "She  brought 
him  forth  a  son"  (25).  From  all  this  we  may 
easily  ascertain  the  narrator's  tendency ;  he  is  bent 
on  bringing  out  the  virginity  of  the  mother  and 
the  legal  title  of  the  father.     According  to  the 


*  "When  the  text  of  Syr.  sin.,  "Joseph,  to  whom  was 
espoused  Mary  the  virgin,  begot  Jesus  who  is  called  the 
Christ,"  was  first  made  known,  great  surprise  at  such 
a  departure  from  the  canonical  text  was  expressed.  Some 
thought  that  we  had  suddenly  come  into  possession  of  a 
text  which  completely  changed  the  entire  situation,  In 
this  they  were  mistaken.  .  .  .  Syr.  sin.,  however,  con- 
tains at  the  same  time  the  canonical  text  of  1 18-20.  Taken 
as  a  whole,  accordingly,  this  recently  discovered  transla- 
tion brings  in  no  new  era;  of  an  older  text  it  contains 
only  traces,  and  these  are  overlaid  by  the  canonical  text." — 
P.  W.  ScHMiEDEL,  in  Encycl.  Biblica,  Vol.  Ill,  col.  2961. 


no         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

tenor  of  the  Jewish  law,  on  becoming  a  mother 
the  Virgin  Mary  gave  a  son  to  her  lawful  hus- 
band. 

Granted,  some  may  say,  the  Syriac  reading  is 
orthodox,  especially  if  the  context  is  also  taken 
into  account;  but  does  not  that  reading  throw 
some  doubts  on  the  authenticity  of  the  text  now 
received  ?  A  question  which  at  once  becomes  still 
more  urgent,  when  we  remember  that  there  is 
a  whole  group  of  MSS.,  called  Western,  both 
Latin  and  Greek,  which  contain  several  various 
readings  of  this  same  verse,  readings  which 
waver,  as  it  were,  between  the  Sinaitic  version 
and  the  Received  Text.* 

All  these  various  readings  betoken  one  and  the 
same  predominant  purpose :  the  purpose  to  affirm 
always  more  and  more  explicity  the  virginal  ma- 
ternity. It  is  around  Mary  that  the  whole  atten- 
tion centres,  and  Joseph  here  appears  only  in  the 
background.  Nay,  in  order  still  more  to  empha- 
size the  unique  prerogative  of  the  Mother,  the 
narrator  adds  to  her  name  the  epithet  of  Virgin, 
which  is  not  found  in  the  Received  Text.  From 
that  tendency  which  is  so  pronounced,  and  from 
the  jerky  turn  of  the  phrase,  especially  in  the 
variants  of  the  Sinaitic  type,  it  is  easy  to  infer 


*  Cf.  above,  pp.  3-4  and  109. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     1 1 1 

that  we  have  before  us  intentional  alterations  and 
not  a  primitive  text. 

At  all  events,  one  thing  is  certain :  the  proposi- 
tion :  And  Joseph  begot  Jesus,  is  found  nowhere, 
and  yet  this  should  be  the  conclusion  of  the  gene- 
alogy, were  the  bond  between  Joseph  and  Jesus 
identical  with  that  which  exists  between  Jacob 
and  Joseph. 

True,  F.  C.  Conybeare  claims  to  have  found 
that  reading  in  a  Greek  dialogue  of  the  5th  cen- 
tury, which  he  published  in  1898,  under  the  title 
Timothy  and  Aquila*  but  his  claim  rests,  I  think. 
on  a  very  wrong  interpretation  of  the  passage. 
Owing  to  the  importance  of  the  question,  we  beg 
our  readers'  leave  to  enter  into  some  particulars. 


The  dialogue  before  us  is  a  public  dispute, 
which  is  supposed  to  have  taken  place  between  a 
Christian,  Timothy,  and  a  Jew,  Aquila,  in  the 
great  church  of  Alexandria,  in  the  time  of  St. 
Cyril.  It  refers  chiefly  to  the  Virgin-Birth  of 
Jesus.  As  the  Christian  had  stated  that  Jesus 
"descends  from  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh," 
the  Jew  asks  immediately   for  His  genealogy. 


'Anecd.  Oxon.  class.,  series  viii,  li. 


112         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Timothy  answers,  with  a  gentle  touch  of  irony, 
that  it  is  rather  strange  for  Aquila,  who  prides 
himself  upon  knowing  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament,  to  be  unacquainted  with  the  gene- 
alogy of  Jesus.  There  it  is  that  the  Jew,  who  is 
anxious  to  show  that  he  knows  that  genealogy, 
appeals  immediately  to  verse  i6  of  the  first  chap- 
ter of  St.  Matthew :  he  quotes  it,  whilst  assailing 
at  the  same  time  the  Christian  belief  which  he 
says  is  opposed  to  the  words  of  the  Gospel  text 
itself.  These  are  his  words  in  this  chapter  of  the 
dialogue:  "J^^ob  begot  Joseph,  the  husband  of 
Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called 
Christ;  and  Joseph  begot  Jesus  who  is  called 
Christ,  of  whom  we  are  now  speaking:  he  {i.  e., 
the  Evangelist)  says  [that  he]  begot  [Him]  of 
Mary."  * 

According  to  Conybeare,  the  ending  words: 
"And  Joseph  begot  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ" 
still  belong  to  the  quotation  from  the  Gospel,  so 
that — as  he  thinks — we  have  here  the  whole  orig- 


♦'Ii7«o5    iykwijacv  tov  'Iuct^^,  rov  av^pa   Mapiac'  ff  VC  iy£vvi]dt) 
'Ifjaovg  6  ?,Ey6uevo(  Xpiardg,    koI    'Iuct^^    kyivv^oEV   rbv  'Ir/aovv  rbv 

2.£y6/j.eVOV  XpiOrdv,  wepi    oC    viv  6  Adpo$,  ^7)<ri>'    iyevvi)<Tev   en    t^s    Mapi'os, 

Op.  cit.,  p.  76.     We  give  Conybeare's  text,  together  with  the 
typographical  variants  of  his  edition. 


Detailed  Crificisin  of  Text  of  Gospels.     1 1 3 

inal  text  of  St.  Matthew.*  But,  as  Schmiedel 
rightly  observed,  it  is  improbable  that  a  primitive 
redaction  should  have  been  so  heavily  diffuse, 
especially  in  a  genealogy  the  wording  of  which 
is  like  that  of  a  stereotyped  formula.  Here  the 
words,  "Jesus,  called  Christ,  was  begotten"  are 
twice  repeated.  Such  as  it  is,  the  phrase  of  the 
dialogue  presents  either  a  tautology  or  an  an- 
tinomy.! 

Any  one  who  takes  up  the  study  of  the  passage 
brought  against  us,  without  the  preconceived  pur- 
pose to  find  in  it  a  denial  of  the  orthodox  belief, 
will  easily  grant  that  Aquila's  quotation  stops  with 


*  Op.  cit.,  p.  76,  and  in  the  Introduction.  Still  more  re- 
cently Conybeare  has  brought  his  view  before  the  public 
both  in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  1902,  i,  p.  96,  and  in  the 
Standard,  May  11,  1905. 

t  Encyl.  Biblica,  Vol.  Ill,  col.  2961.  On  the  other  hand, 
Schmiedel's  explanation  can  hardly  also  be  admitted.  The 
author  of  the  dialogue,  we  are  told,  depended  on  a  text  of 
the  first  Gospel,  in  which  a  corrector,  perhaps  a  mere 
copyist,  combined  the  two  readings :  first,  the  one  which 
still  remains  in  the  Received  Text,  then  the  primitive  re- 
daction, 'luay(p  6e  £}£vvticev  tov  'Itjoovv.  This  is  surely  a 
groundless  conjecture;  nay,  it  is  opposed  to  the  rest  of 
the  dialogue  in  which  the  Christian  quotes  twice  Matthew 
(i  16)  precisely  according  to  the  Received  Text,  although 
he  does  not  rebuke  the  Jew  for  having  put  forward  an 
inauthentic  quotation. 


114         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  first  mention  of  the  words,  "who  is  called 
Christ" :  *  what  follows  is  but  a  commentary  of 
his  own  invention.  After  recording  the  authentic 
words  of  the  Gospel,  he  concludes :  "This  amounts 
to  say  that  Joseph  begot  Jesus,  Him  of  whom  we 
are  speaking;  the  Evangelist  says  that  he  begot 
Him  from  Mary."t    In  that  interpretation  he  as- 


*  To  those  unfamiliar  with  Conybeare's  mental  habits,  it 
may  prove  of  some  benefit  to  recall  a  few  words  of  the 
appreciation  passed  recently  upon  him  by  Sanday,  the 
eminent  Oxford  professor :  "It  is  characteristic  of  Mr. 
Conybeare's  method  that  only  the  eccentric  and  the  ab- 
normal appear  to  have  any  weight  with  him.  He  says 
nothing  whatever  as  to  the  evidence  for  the  belief  of 
the  main  body  of  the  Church;  and  yet  no  fact  is  too 
slight  or  too  fantastic  or  too  remote  for  him,  if  only  it 
seems  to  make  against  the  orthodox  belief."  It  is  almost 
unnecessary  to  say  that,  according  to  Abbe  Houtin,  Cony- 
beare  is  the  impartial  critic,  one  who  takes  only  texts  and 
facts  into  account.  .  .  .  Cf.  La  Question  Biblique  au 
XX^^e  sihle,  pp.  241,  242,  245,  247,  249. 

t  We  translate  ««'  by  this  amounts  to  say,  because  that 
explanatory  particle  has  often  that  meaning,  both  in  classi- 
cal Greek,  and  even  in  this  dialogue  of  Timothy  and 
Aquila,  p.  81,  last  line.  In  our  interpretation,  which  we 
believe  is  the  right  one,  the  quotation  stops  with  the  words 
6  XeySfiEvog  Xpiaroc,  and  the  phrase  is  punctuated  as  follows : 
'laKuji  tyewfiffev  tov  'Iwct/;^,  tov  avdpa  Mofjiac,  cf  f/c  kyEVVTjdi] 
'Ir/ffOVt  6  Xeyo/ievo^  "KpiCToQ'  [koX  'Ico<ri)<^  iyivyfvatv  rov  'I»)(roCi'  toV 
Aeyo/nei'oi'  XpiCTToi',  irtpi  oB  vvv  6  k6po%-  <i>r)ai.v  iyevvaev  €K  T^s  Mopi'as].      All 

that  follows  the  quotation  is,  as  was  said  already,  a  com- 
mentary made  up  by  the  Jew. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     115 

signs  to  Joseph  the  chief  part  in  Christ's  genera- 
tion. Timothy,  who  recognizes  at  once  the  abuse 
his  opponent  makes  of  St.  Matthew's  text,  re- 
plies immediately:  "Thou  must  make  thy  quo- 
tations accurately  (6p0aj^,  as  is  becoming)  and  in 
order  ( xai.  xard  Td^iv ) ,  as  wc  do  ourselves,  when  we 
bring  forward  the  Old  Testament,  for  instance: 
"There  is  in  the  hand  of  the  Lord  a  cup  full  of 
wine,  and  He  inclines  it  on  this  and  on  that 
side."  *  If  thou  dost  strive  to  pass  by  something, 
we  notice  it;  now  this  is  what  is  written";  and 
then  the  Christian  quotes  the  whole  genealogy  as 
found  in  our  text  of  St.  Matthew,  with  this  dif- 
ference, however,  that  at  verse  16,  instead  of  "the 
husband  of  Mary"  (avdpa  MapiaQ),  he  uses  words 
like  those  used  in  the  MSS.  of  the  so-called 
Ferrara  group,  and  says :  "he  to  whom  the  Virgin 
Mary  was  espoused." 

After  a  digression  about  the  Old  Testament 
prophecies  and  symbols  that  refer  to  the  Virgin- 
Mother,  Timothy  recites  a  second  time  the  gene- 
alogy of  the  first  Gospel,  and  here  again  the  word- 


*  Judging  from  the  quotation  of  Ps.  74  9,  given  literally- 
according  to  LXX,  Timothy  apparently  means  to  say  that 
a  text  should  be  given  in  full,  in  order  that  the  right  side, 
as  it  were,  may  counterbalance  the  left. 


ii6         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  CJirisf. 

ing  of  verse  i6  agrees  with  the  Received  Text.* 
To  resume:  the  Jew  Aquila  thinks  that,  from 
Matthew,  i  ^®,  as  we  have  it  now,  he  may  legiti- 
mately infer  that  Jesus  is  the  descendant  of 
Joseph,  by  way  of  generation.  The  Christian 
Timothy  replies  that,  in  order  to  draw  that  con- 
clusion, one  must  separate  this  verse  from  its 
context.  And  it  is  precisely  that  context  which 
gives  him  the  right  to  smooth  some  expressions, 
unless  he  was  acquainted  with  some  Greek  copies, 
the  text  of  which  had  already  been  influenced  by 
an  apologetical  exegesis,  f 

Now,  as  to  our  conclusion,  all  the  various  read- 
ings of  Matthew,  i  ^',  that  are  known  to  us,  may 
be  derived  from  the  Received  Text,  and  there- 
fore there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  look  upon 
any  of  them  as  authentic^     Since  their  wording, 


*  Only  with  this  difference,  which  brings  out  still  more 
the  apologetical  tendency  of  the  whole  passage,  instead  of 
"the  husband  of  Mary,"  he  says :  "who  was  espoused  to 
Mary" :  instead  of  "who  is  called  Christ,"  he  says :  "Christ, 
the  Son  of  God." 

t  These  are  also  the  conclusions  of  C.  Burkitt.  Cf. 
Evangelion  da-mepharreshe,  1904,  Vol.  II,  p.  265.  Then, 
too,  J.  R.  Wilkinson  had  immediately  answered  Conybeare, 
in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  1903,  p.  354. 

t  Cf.  these  various  readings  above,  pp.  3-4  and  109. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels,     iiy 

as  we  think,  conveys  an  orthodox  meaning,  they 
cannot  represent  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Joseph,  what- 
ever account  may  be  given  of  the  origin  and  bear- 
ing of  His  genealogy.*  In  the  present  state  of 
the  question,  we  must  affirm  and  maintain,  in 
the  name  of  sound  criticism,  that  the  reading  of 
the  Received  Text  is  the  primitive  one.  First  of 
all  it  is  attested  by  all  the  texts  and  translations, 
except  those  few  witnesses  we  have  just  quoted 
and  discussed;!  and  rightly  it  is  maintained  in 
all  of  the  critical  editions  of  the  New  Testament. 
Then  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  a  rule  found  in 
all  the  text  books  of  textual  criticism.  Generally, 
and  unless  there  are  proofs  to  the  contrary,  one  is 
justified  to  hold  as  primitive  or  as  the  earliest,  the 
reading  that  is  short,  vague,  obscure,  devoid  of 
any  a  priori  tendency  and  preoccupation,  rather 
than  those  readings  which  are  more  developed, 
more  precise  and  distinct,  more  decidedly  favor- 


*  These  various  solutions  are  well  given  by  Sanday  in 
Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Vol.   II,  p.  645. 

t  The  reader  may  observe  that  all  these  variants  are 
found  in  the  MSS.  that  form  the  so-called  Western  group. 
Formerly  little  attention  was  paid  to  that  group,  owing  to 
the  strange  character  of  its  departures  from  the  reading 
of  other  MSS.;  but  within  the  last  few  years  it  has  been 
praised,  precisely  on  account  of  that  feature. 


ii8         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

able  to  doctrinal  views,  especially  if  these  views 
refer  to  a  topic  that  was  formerly  disputed.  Is 
this  not  the  case  of  Matthew,  i  ^^,  when  compared 
with  its  variants? 

As  soon  as  the  Virgin-Birth  became  a  subject 
of  controversy,  the  orthodox  were  sure  to  en- 
counter difficulties  arising  from  a  genealogy 
which  connects  Christ  with  David's  family 
through  Joseph.  True,  Mary's  name  is  men- 
tioned; but  so  also  are  the  names  of  Thamar, 
Rahab,  Ruth  and  Bethsabee.  This  is  why  Cerin- 
thus,  Carpocrates,  and  perhaps  Symmachus  con- 
fidently appealed  to  the  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Matthew  in  support  of  their  views  regarding  the 
origin  of  Jesus  according  to  the  flesh:  they  had 
merely  to  follow  the  same  line  of  argument  as 
that  followed  by  the  Jew  in  the  dialogue  of  Tim- 
othy and  Aquila. 

That  here  and  there  the  text  has  been  replaced 
by  the  orthodox  commentary,  based  indeed  on 
the  text  and  on  the  traditional  sentiment,  is  easily 
accounted  for :  we  know  of  other  cases  where  the 
same  proceeding  was  adopted.  However,  such 
attempts  were  few,  nor  did  they  succeed  in  sup- 
planting the  primitive  reading. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     119 


As  found  in  St.  Luke,  the  narrative  of  the 
Infancy  carries  with  itself  the  proofs  of  its 
authenticity.  The  style  of  that  narrative  flows 
with  such  limpidity  that  it  conveys  that  impres- 
sion of  freshness  we  experience  in  contact  with 
the  sources  and  earliest  records  of  a  fact.  Can 
we  imagine  a  literary  piece  more  homogeneous 
and  better  connected  than  these  first  two  chapters  ? 
According  to  Renan,  the  delight  which  St.  Luke 
felt  in  writing  his  Gospel  shall  never  be  suffi- 
ciently realized.*  If  that  saying  of  the  French 
scholar  is  true  to  any  degree,  it  applies  preem- 
inently to  the  passage  in  question.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  nobody  as  yet  had  ever  thought  of  deny- 
ing its  primitive  character  and  unity.  Marcion 
himself  did  not  feel  bold  enough  to  make  a  selec- 
tion, and  dropped  the  whole  narrative  out  of  his 
text.  Those  who  tell  us  of  this  fact  give  us  also 
the  motives  by  which  he  was  prompted.  Gnostic 
and  docetist  as  he  was,  he  denied  to  Christ  any 
human  birth,  and  therefore  was  inclined  to  get 
rid  of  His  genealogy  and  of  a  narrative  which 
recorded  His  birth  from  a  woman,  f 

*"It  is  the  most  beautiful  book  there  is.  The  pleasure 
that  the  author  must  have  had  in  writing  it  will  never  be 
sufficiently  understood."     {The  Gospels,  p.  148.) 

t  St.  Irenaeus,  Contra  Hceres.,  I,  xxvii,  2;  xii,  7,  12; 
Tertull.,  Adv.  Marc,  i,  i;  ix,  2;  St.  Epiphanius,  Hceres., 


I20         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  was  reserved  for  contemporary  critics  to  get 
hold  of  the  text  of  St.  Luke  and  then  to  tear  it 
to  pieces.  They  openly  start  with  a  hypothesis 
which  gradually  assumes  in  their  eyes  the  value 
of  an  undisputed  fact :  the  primitive  Church  must 
have  been  Ebionitic;  therefore  her  belief  of  the 
origin  of  Jesus  cannot  have  been  the  belief  re- 
corded in  the  text  of  the  third  Gospel  (1-2^°), 
which  is  so  manifestly  full  of  the  idea  of  a  super- 
natural conception.  Hence  it  follows  that  this 
portion  of  the  narrative  does  not  represent  the 
earliest  stage  of  Christian  thought.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  second  part  (2^^"^^),  where  we  see  the 
Child  of  Joseph  and  Mary  submit  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  grow  under  the  influence  of  divine 
grace,  most  probably  can  rightly  claim  to  be  the 
older  and  may  be  considered  a  fragment  of 
Judseo-Christian  literature. 

I,  3,  II.  Besides,  from  internal  criticism  it  is  easy  to 
ascertain  that  the  text  of  Marcion  was  mutilated  and  that 
our  text  was  not  formed  out  of  his  own  text,  by  means 
of  addition.  Cf.  Plummer,  The  Gospel  according  to  St. 
Luke,  1900,  3d  edit.,  pp.  Ixix-lxx.  As  we  saw  before, 
ScHMiEDEL  feels  inclined  to  repeat  Marcion's  attempt, 
whilst  Harnack,  Sitsungsher.  der  Kais.-Preuss.  Acad,  der 
Wiss.,  1900,  p.  538,  maintains  that  the  two  chapters,  taken  as 
a  whole,  come  from  St.  Luke. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     121 

All  this  is  an  assertion  which  is  perfectly  arbi- 
trary and  to  which  nothing  in  the  text,  neither 
the  substance  nor  the  style,  gives  any  support 
whatever.  No  difference  in  style  between  the  so- 
called  sections  can  be  noticed.  The  second  sec- 
tion, which  we  are  told  is  the  older,  supports,  on 
the  contrary,  the  first,  as  may  be  easily  seen  by 
comparing  2  ^^  with  i  ^\  The  Evangelist  observes 
that  on  the  day  of  its  circumcision  the  Child  was 
called  Jesus,  "a  name  which  was  so  called  by  the 
Angel  before  He  was  conceived  in  the  womb" 
of  His  mother:  but  this  is  meaningless,  if  not 
taken  in  connection  with  the  Angel's  words,  found 
in  the  first  chapter:  "Behold,  thou  shalt  conceive 
in  thy  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shalt 
call  his  name  Jesus."  *  In  several  other  places, 
particularly  i  '°  and  2  ",  i  ""''«  and  2  "■'^  the 
similarity  is  just  as  striking.  The  whole  narrative 
breathes  one  and  the  same  spirit:  even  in  the 
second  part  Mary  holds  the  chief  place. f  If  we 
were  to  take  into  account  Jewish  customs,  that 


*  Schmiedel  discards  most  unceremoniously  that  com- 
parison which  deals  a  severe  blow  to  his  theory.  "This 
backward  reference  to  i  ^i  can  easily  have  been  inserted 
when  the  two  chapters  were  being  joined  together." 
(Encycl.  Biblica,  Vol.  Ill,  col.  2960.) 

tCf.  2  3*'   48'   51. 


122         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

precedence  ascribed  to  a  woman  is  unaccountable, 
were  Mary  an  ordinary  mother.  I  leave  aside, 
for  the  time  being,  the  intimate  character  of  the 
details  supplied  by  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  a 
character  which  justifies  us  to  associate  the  nar- 
rative of  those  details  with  the  witness  of  the 
very  persons  most  interested  in  all  those  happen- 
ings :  we  shall  take  up  this  subject  later. 


Some  more  perspicacious  and  apparently  un- 
biased critics,  whilst  granting  the  literary  unity 
of  the  passage,  as  a  whole,  think  that,  in  order 
to  remove  from  it  the  idea  of  the  Virgin-Birth 
we  have  merely  to  suppress  verses  34  and  35  of 
the  first  chapter:  "And  Mary  said  to  the  Angel: 
'How  shall  this  be,  since  I  know  not  man  ?'  And 
the  Angel  answered  and  said  to  her:  'The  Holy 
Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of 
the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee :  and  there- 
fore the  Holy  One  that  is  to  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God.'  "  This  parenthesis 
probably  did  not  belong  to  the  primitive  record 
made  use  of  by  the  third  Evangelist.  Besides, 
the  same  critics  grant  that  it  may  have  been  in- 
troduced by  St.  Luke  himself  or  by  an  inter- 
polator. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     12t^ 

Nothing  short  of  most  conclusive  reasons  must 
prompt  one  to  lay  hands  on  a  text  the  authen- 
ticity of  which  had  as  yet  remained  unquestioned. 
Those  given  by  Hamack  may  be  grouped  under 
three  headings :  peculiarities  of  dialect,  a  break  in 
the  narrative,  a  contradictory  attitude  of  person- 
ages who  are  introduced  in  these  two  verses.* 

I — Should  we  ask  Harnack  to  hold  as  doubtful 
all  the  Biblical  and  classical  passages  in  which  we 
come  across  a  term  that  is  not  found  in  another 
part  of  the  work,  he  would  certainly  charge  us 
with  overstraining  his  thought.  Hence  we  shall 
not  insist,  convinced  as  we  are,  that  he  himself 
sets  but  little  value  on  his  first  suggestion.! 


*  Zu  Lc  i,  34,  in  Zeitsch.  fur  die  neutestam.  Wissenschaft, 
1901,  p.  53. 

t  The  verses  in  question  contain  the  particles  tTret  and 
i^i6.  Now  ETEt  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  St.  Luke,  7  ^  can 
be  questioned.  As  to  <5i(5,  it  is  read  another  time  in  the 
third  Gospel,  7  "^ ;  and  Harnack  questions  its  authenticity, 
because  that  particle  is  missing  in  several  testimonies. 
This  suggestion  has  seemed  so  weak  that  all  the  critical  edi- 
tions retain  here  ii-6  as  authentic,  and  rightly  so.  Yet, 
Harnack  still  continues  to  have  some  misgivings.  "Owing 
to  the  constancy  exhibited  by  St.  Luke's  Gospel  in  the  use 
of  the  particles,"  he  says,  "the  presence  of  ii-6  in  the  verses 
in  question  (i  ^s,  77)  can  only  surprise  us:  as  to^TrEt,  it  re- 
veals unmistakably  its  origin."  But  Harnack  knew  in  1901 
that  Sl    is  found  ten  times  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles:  and 


124         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

2 — Is  there  truly  an  unnatural  disconnection  be- 
tween verse  3 1  and  verse  36,  as  a  consequence  of 
the  so-called  interpolation  ?  I  have  to  confess  that 
in  spite  of  all  of  my  efforts  I  cannot  see  that  dis- 
connection. It  would  be  just  as  fair  to  say  that 
Zachary's  answer,  at  verse  18,  has  been  disjointed 
from  the  words  of  the  Angel,  found  at  verse  13. 
Did  not  verses  34  and  35  figure  actually  in  the 
text,  the  exigencies  of  the  narrative  might  justify 
us  to  suppose  that  they  might  be  suppressed ;  but 
we  need  not  have  recourse  to  any  hypothesis :  the 
contested  passage  does  actually  belong  to  the  text, 
and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  why  it  should 
be  removed.  There  is  only  one  testimony,  and 
to  my  mind  a  most  insufficient  and  inconclusive 
testimony,  that  might  throw  some  doubts  on  the 
passage  in  question,  viz.,  the  testimony  of  a  Latin 
MS.,  of  the  6th  century,  which,  owing  to  a  mis- 
take of  the  copyist,  has  verse  38  instead  of  verse 
34,   so  that  the  former  is  given  twice.*     This 

all  know  that  the  scholarly  critic  has  recently  published  a 
book,  to  show  that  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  come 
from  the  same  author,  and  that  this  author  is  Luke  the 
physician.  Cf.  Lukas  der  Arst,  1906.  (English  translation, 
New  York,  1907.) 

*  This  is  h,  cod.  veronensis,  edited  in  Migne,  P.  L.,  xii, 
506.  Cf.  TiscHENDORF,  Nov.  Test.,  edit.  8a  maj.,  1869. 
Those  critical  editions,  which  retain  only  important  variants, 
do  not  even  mention  this  variant. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     125 

would  be  indeed  to  overestimate  altogether  an 
isolated  MS.,  of  which  the  archetype  is  to  be 
sought  among  those  copies  St.  Jerome  deemed  of 
no  account,  as  we  know  by  his  words  to  Pope 
Damasus:  "Apud  nos"  (Latins)  "mixta  sunt 
omnia."  * 

We  are  told  that  verse  35,  far  from  being  a 
development  of  what  precedes,  introduces  a  new 
explanation  and  thus  seems  to  contradict  verses 
31  and  32:  it  is  no  longer  question  of  a  Savior, 
the  heir  of  the  House  of  David,  His  Father,  but 
of  the  Son  of  God,  conceived  through  the  oper- 
ation of  the  Holy  Ghost. — To  make  the  difficulty 
somewhat  plausible,  it  would  not  have  been  out 
of  place  to  tell  us  why  a  Son  of  David  could 
not  a  few  lines  later  be  represented  as  the  Son  of 
God.  Then,  too,  from  this  point  of  view,  verse 
35  adds  nothing  to  verse  32,  as  David's  heir  is 
already  called  "the  Son  of  the  Most  High."  True, 
the    supernatural    conception   is    not    mentioned 


*  The  whole  passage  deserves  to  be  given  in  full :  "Si 
enim  latinis  exemplaribus  fides  est  adhibenda,  respondeant 
quibus :  tot  enim  sunt  exemplaria  pasne  quot  codices  .  .  . 
ea  quae  vel  a  vitiosis  interpretibus  male  edita,  vel  a  prae- 
sumptoribus  imperitis  emendata  perversius,  vel  a  librariis 
dormitantibus  aut  addita  sunt,  aut  mutata  corrigimus.  .  .  . 
Unde  accidit  ut  apud  nos  mixta  sint  omnia."  (Migne, 
P.  L.,  xxix,  526-528). 


126         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

before  verse  35.  No  wonder,  for  this  second 
explanation  is  called  for  by  Mary's  question: 
"Quomodo  fiet  istud,  quoniam  virum  non  cog- 
nosco?"  To  insist  and  say  that,  from  the  very 
wording  of  this  same  verse  35,  Jesus  is  called 
the  Son  of  God,  precisely  because  He  is  to  be 
supernaturally  conceived,  is  to  suggest  another 
difficulty  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  au- 
thentic character  of  verses  34  and  35,  and  which 
we  shall  consider  later  on. 

According  to  Harnack,  Mary's  question  (v.  34) 
is  a  priori  incredible.  She  asks  how  the  Angel's 
prediction  can  be  fulfilled.  Mary  is  espoused  and 
she  certainly  contemplates  marriage.  Under  these 
conditions  the  promise  of  maternity  is  not  at  all 
perplexing,  since  so  far  no  mention  of  a  vir- 
ginal conception  has  been  made. — Catholic  inter- 
preters have  always  answered  the  difficulty  by 
saying  that,  in  spite  of  her  betrothal  and  wedding, 
Mary  intended  to  remain  a  virgin.  In  our  eyes 
this  explanation  is  the  true  one ;  still  it  is  but  fair 
to  observe  that  some  Protestant  scholars  do  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  uphold  the  a  priori  probable 
character  of  the  question  expressed  in  verse  34.* 

Loisy  himself  has  no  relish  for  the  quick  pro- 
ceedings of  those  critics  who  issue  a  decree  of 

*  Cf.  Plummer,  The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke,  p.  24. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.    127 

inauthenticity  against  Luke  i  ^*'  ^^  "Harnack," 
he  writes,  "seems  to  mind  too  little  the  words 
*I  know  not  man.'  Even  though  they  might 
be  intended  only  to  prepare  the  Angel's  answer, 
they  must  be  something  else  than  an  unimportant 
and  untimely  artificial  process  of  redaction.  The 
question  is  not  if  an  actually  married  woman 
could  wonder  at  becoming  a  mother,  but  if  the 
writer  of  this  passage  could  believe  that  Mary 
could  wonder.  He  has  drawn  up  the  ques- 
tion in  keeping  with  his  own  ideas  of  Mary's 
relations  with  her  husband,  and  he  would  have 
expressed  that  question  in  some  other  way,  had 
the  assertion  "I  know  not  man"  been  as  pre- 
posterous from  his  point  of  view  as  it  appears  to 
Harnack.  The  natural  meaning  of  those  words 
is  that  which  has  been  ascribed  to  them  by  Cath- 
olic tradition:  Mary's  objection  has  any  sense  at 
all,  only  if  her  marriage  has  taken  place,  and  yet 
has  not  been  consummated,  and  it  is  most  prob- 
able that  the  Evangelist  himself  thus  understood 
it."  * 

Again,  we  are  told  that  another  proof  of  the 
interpolation  of  verses  34  and  35  may  be  found 
in  the  words  of  the  Angel  regarding  Elizabeth, 


*  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litt.  religieuses,  1903,  p.  291. 


128         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

in  verses  36  and  ^t?-  These  words  have  no  mean- 
ing, only  if  nothing  as  yet  has  been  said  of  vir- 
ginal conception  through  the  working  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  the  fact  of  Elizabeth  becoming  a  mother 
in  her  old  age  can  serve  as  a  sign  of  Jesus'  Mes- 
sianic dignity,  but  not  of  His  virginal  conception. 
A  miracle  of  a  lower  order  cannot  be  the  token 
of  a  miracle  of  a  higher  order ;  the  more  so,  that 
to  all  appearances,  verse  37,  "Nothing  is  impos- 
sible to  God,"  must  be  understood  of  the  case  of 
Elizabeth  only. 

Let  us  abide  by  the  text  alone.  Its  obvious 
meaning,  that  suggested  by  a  mere  reading  and 
confirmed  by  a  deeper  study,  amounts  to  this : 
there  is  an  intended  parallelism  between  the  two 
conceptions,  that  of  Elizabeth  and  that  of  Mary; 
besides,  the  former,  of  which  Mary  is  going  to 
ascertain  in  a  few  days  the  reality,  must  serve  to 
her  as  a  proof  that,  according  to  the  words  of 
the  Angel,  the  latter  will  take  place  also.  Of 
course,  the  fact  of  a  woman  becoming  pregnant  in 
her  old  age  does  not,  in  itself,  conclusively  prove 
that  a  virgin  will  become  a  mother;  hence  the 
Angel  adds  immediately  that  "nothing  is  impos- 
sible to  God."  If  these  words  refer  to  the  preg- 
nancy of  Elizabeth  only,  they  are  inappropriate. 
Why  should  divine  "omnipotence"  be  invoked  for 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     129 


the  realization  of  a  prodigy  which  is  by  no  means 
uncommon  in  Jewish  history?  Sara,  Anna,  and 
Manue's  wife  became  mothers  in  similar  circum- 
stances. Nay,  that  intervention  of  divine  grace 
was  deemed  so  frequent  that  the  Psalmist  chose 
it  as  an  instance  of  Yahweh's  mercy, 

"Who  maketh  the  barren  woman  to  keep  house, 
And  to  be  a  joyful  mother  of  children."* 

We  would  upset  indeed  the  leading  thought  of 
the  whole  narrative  of  the  Annunciation  in  St. 
Luke,  did  we  suppose  that,  according  to  him,  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shone  less  in  Jesus' 
conception  than  in  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  And 
yet  they  are  driven  to  uphold  this  paradox,  who 
deny  the  virginal  conception,  strictly  so  called. 
Elizabeth  needs  divine  grace  to  become  a  mother, 
whilst  Mary  can  claim  to  conceive  and  bring  forth 
without  any  special  intervention  from  God.  For 
the  Evangelist,  there  is  manifestly  nothing  com- 
mon between  a  "late  born"  child,  and  Jesus  born 
of  Mary  through  the  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Finally,  it  need  hardly  be  observed  that  the 
words  of  consent  uttered  by  Mary:  "Behold,  the 
handmaid  of  the  Lord :  be  it  done  to  me,  accord- 

*Ps.  113  9   (Heb.) 


130         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

ing  to  thy  word"  are  neither  a  prayer  nor  a 
thanksgiving,  but  an  act  of  submission  to  the  will 
of  God.  To  what  does  she  submit?  To  the 
honor  of  becoming  the  mother  of  the  Messias? 
No  interpreter  has  as  yet  dreamt  of  that  ex- 
planation. Without  even  the  shadow  of  doubt, 
Mary  consents  to  become  a  mother,  since  it  is 
the  will  of  God,  even  though  she  had  already 
planned  her  life  otherwise.  Thus  understood, 
verse  38  implies  verse  34,  which  some  declare 
unauthentic* 

Again  there  is  another  improbability  which  we 
are  told  was  introduced  into  the  primitive  text, 
when  it  was  interpolated:  Zachary  was  punished 
for  saying  to  the  Angel :  How  can  I  know  the 
truth  of  what  you  announce?    On  the  other  hand, 


*  Regarding  the  Hebrew  phraseology  of  the  two  con- 
tested verses,  i  3*.  ss,  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  G.  H. 
Box,  The  Gospel  Narrative  of  Nativity  and  the  Alleged 
Influence  of  Heathen  Ideas,  in  ZNTW,  1905,  p.  92. 

P.  Feine's  motto,  quoted  by  Lagrange,  Revue  Biblique, 
1895,  p.  176,  is  most  appropriate :  "To  do  away  with  these 
two  verses  (i34,  35)  jg  iq  remove  the  jewel  and  to  leave 
the  setting."  Conybeare,  in  the  Guardian,  March  1903, 
insists  on  the  fact  that  Luke  i  3*.  ss  jg  not  given  in  the 
apocryphal  writing,  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  xi;  but 
the  reply  has  been  made  that  these  two  verses  are  implicitly 
contained  in  the  words  of  the  Angel,  xi,  2.  Cf.  Knowling, 
The  Virgin  Birth,  p.  94. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     131 

Mary  is  praised  for  her  faith  (i  *^),  although 
she  also  utters  a  word  of  mistrust. — Mary's 
question  implies  no  mistrust;  it  does  not  betoken 
even  surprise.  Why  should  an  affianced  bride 
wonder  at  the  words  with  which  Gabriel  addresses 
her:  "Ecce  concipies  et  paries  fHium"?  But  she 
expresses  the  wish  to  be  told  about  a  particular 
point  which  she  has  the  right  to  know.  As  she 
intends  to  remain  a  virgin,  Mary  fails  to  see  dis- 
tinctly how  she  can  become  the  mother  of  the 
Messias.* 

3 — Harnack  thinks  that  Mary's  question  is  not 
in  keeping  with  her  character.  In  all  that  narra- 
tive Mary's  distinctive  feature  is  a  silent  attitude : 
she  makes  no  answer  to  Elizabeth,  nor  to  the 
shepherds,  nor  to  Simeon,  nor  to  Jesus  Himself : 
she  merely  buries  in  her  heart,  as  it  were,  what 
she  hears.  But  in  this  case,  on  the  contrary,  she 
is  so  bold  as  to  reply  to  the  Angel :  How  shall  this 

*  "She  does  not  ask  for  proof,  as  Zacharias  did  (verse 
18)  ;  and  only  in  the  form  of  the  words  does  she  ask  as 
to  the  mode  of  accomplishment.  Her  utterance  is  little 
more  than  an  involuntary  expression  of  amazement :  non 
dubitantis  sed  admirantis  (Grotius).  In  contrasting  her 
with  Zacharias,  Ambrose  says,  Haec  jam  de  negotio  tractat; 
ille  adhuc  de  nuntio  dubitat.  It  is  clear  that  she  does  not 
doubt  the  fact  promised,  nor  for  a  moment  suppose  that 
her  child  is  to  be  the  child  of  Joseph."  Plummer,  loc.  cit., 
p.  24. 


132         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

take  place? — The  objection  supposes  that  the 
Magnificat  was  not  said  by  Mary,  and  starts  from 
this  denial  as  from  an  established  principle.  Some 
ten  years  ago  the  attribution  of  that  Canticle  be- 
came an  object  of  dispute,  and  now  in  the  judg- 
ment of  many,  that  dispute  must  be  settled  accord- 
ing to  the  traditional  view.  It  is  almost  unneces- 
sary for  us  to  observe  that  some  scholars  draw 
rather  hasty  conclusions  and  are  very  little  exact- 
ing indeed  as  regards  proofs.*  Again,  Mary  sud- 
denly ceases  to  abide  by  her  attitude  of  silence, 
simply  because  she  answers  in  five  words  the  most 
extraordinary  message!  But  then,  why  not  sup- 
press I  ^^  "Behold,  the  handmaid  of  the  Lord," 
and  also  2  *^  ?  Then  indeed,  she  would  be  silent ! 
These,  then,  are  the  reasons  by  which  some 
scholars  of  no  mean  reputation  feel  justified  in 
reaching  the  following  conclusions — (a)  in  the 
earlier  narrative  of  the  third  Gospel  there  was  no 
mention  of  the  virginal  conception;  (b)  the  in- 
cidental phrase  w?  hojiiZtro ,  as  was  supposed, 
is  an  addition  demanded  by  the  interpolated  verses 
34  and  35 :  (c)  hence  it  follows  that  the  epithet 
Ttapdivo?^  virgo,  which  is  read  twice  in  2y  may 
be  set  aside,  and  that  the  word  ^ixvriareuiiivq, 
betrothed,  has  in  this  last  passage  the  same  mean- 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  17. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Test  of  Gospels.     133 

ing  as  in  2  ^',  where  it  is  merely  a  useless  addition 
joined  to r^^a^'^h wife* 

The  reader  may  now  judge  of  what  remains  of 
those  three  assertions. 

Conybeare  has  made  an  attempt  to  give  an  his- 
torical confirmation  to  what  we  may  not  im- 
properly style,  quibbles  based  on  the  study  of  the 
text  itself  of  St.  Luke;  but  it  must  be  confessed 
that  he  has  not  been  success ful.f  Theodotus  the 
tanner — whose  testimony  some  modestly  pretend 
to  have  unearthed  and  revealed  to  the  world — 
Theodotus  the  tanner,  I  say,  did  not  appeal 
to  the  third  Gospel  (i  ^^)  to  question  Christ's 
virginal  conception — which  he  probably  admitted 
— but  to  deny  His  divinity.  The  Angel,  he  used 
to  observe,  said:  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,"  not :  "shall  be  in  thee."  The  text  of 
St.  Epiphanius  is  within  easy  reach,  and  all  may 
convince  themselves  that  this  author — the  only 
one  who  enters  into  details  about  the  texts  alleged 
by  Theodotus — understood  thus  the  error  of  the 
tanner  of  Byzantium,  and  especially  his  attitude 
regarding  i  ^^| 

*  UsENER,  in  Encycl.  Biblica.,  Vol.  Ill,  col.  3349. 

'\  The  Standard,  May  11,  1905. 

%  St.  Epiphan.,  Adv.  Hcer.,  I,  liv,  3.  Cf.  Salmon,  in  the 
Diet,  of  Christ.  Biography,  Vol.  IV,  p.  979;  and  especially 
J.  TixERONT,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  Vol.  I,  La  Theologie 
Anteniceenne,  p.  311. 


134         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

True,  in  the  Acts  of  Pilate  (the  Gospel  of 
Nicodemus),  the  friends  of  Jesus  do  not  appeal  to 
the  fact  of  His  miraculous  conception  to  shield 
Him  from  the  slander  of  the  Jews ;  but  this  is 
simply  because  the  author  supposes  His  friends 
as  yet  unacquainted  with  that  mystery.  Besides, 
had  they  actually  known  it,  it  would  have  been 
for  them  a  policy  of  elementary  common  sense 
not  to  bring  forward  a  reason  of  this  kind  before 
the  Sanhedrin  or  before  Pilate's  tribunal.  This 
time  at  least,  the  apocryphal  writing  has  remained, 
contrary  to  its  custom,  within  the  limits  of  plaus- 
ibility. 


In  their  attempts  to  throw  doubt  on  the  primi- 
tive character  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  some 
critics  insist  on  the  fact  that  it  is  absent  from 
the  text  of  St.  Mark,  which  represents  the  earliest 
type  of  the  Gospel  narrative. 

Scholars  generally  grant  that  the  second  Gospel 
follows  the  primitive  catechesis  more  closely  than 
the  others  do :  a  statement  to  which  the  words  of 
the  Presbyter  in  Papias  contribute  a  few  more 
precise  and  particular  details  as  to  the  catechesis 
of  Peter. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     135 

Now,  the  primitive  catechesis,  as  made  known 
through  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  dwelt  on  those 
facts  of  the  Savior's  life  which  relate  more  es- 
pecially to  the  work  of  salvation  He  had  come 
to  accomplish  in  this  world :  His  baptism,  preach- 
ing, miracles,  above  all  His  passion  and  resurrec- 
tion.* Were  the  silence  of  Mark  on  this  point  a 
proof  of  ignorance,  why  should  we  not  say  also 
that  all  that  he  knows  of  the  Savior's  life  is  only 
what  he  relates  about  it? — a  consequence  which 
even  the  most  advanced  critics  may  hesitate  to 
draw.  Is  it  plausible  that  Christians  should  have 
waited  until  the  last  quarter  of  the  first  century 
to  make  inquiries  regarding  the  origin  and  in- 
fancy of  Jesus?  That  the  information  on  that 
topic  remained  in  the  background  of  the  thoughts 
of  the  Apostles,  that  it  was  a  subject  of  private 
conversation  rather  than  of  preaching,  that  not 


*Just  after  the  Ascension,  St.  Peter  describes  graphic- 
ally in  a  few  words  the  qualities  of  the  disciple  it  is  fit 
to  choose  for  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  instead  of  the 
traitor  Judas :  he  must  be  a  witness  of  Christ's  public 
life.  "Of  the  men  therefore  that  have  companied  with  us 
all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went  out 
among  us,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  the 
day  that  he  was  received  up  from  us,  of  these  must  one 
become    a    witness    with    us    of    his    resurrection."     Acts 

I  21-22_ 


136         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

all  the  details  enjoyed  at  once  and  universally  all 
the  credit  sufficient  that  they  might  be  received 
without  any  reserve,  we  readily  grant:  but  that 
the  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke  arose  and 
became  actually  received  within  the  space  of  a 
few  years,  which  intervene  between  the  second 
Gospel  on  one  hand,  and  the  first  and  third  Gos- 
pels on  the  other,  cannot  be  held. 

But  we  may  offer  more  than  an  indirect  answer. 
Is  the  idea  of  Jesus'  supernatural  birth  altogether 
absent  from  the  second  Gospel?  We  can  hardly 
believe  it.  Whilst  the  three  other  Evangelists 
speak  of  Joseph  and  do  not  hesitate  to  call  him 
the  father  of  Jesus,  Mark  has  nothing  at  all  to 
say  about  the  Virgin's  husband ;  for  him  Jesus  is 
the  "Son  of  Mary."*  This  is  indeed  a  note- 
worthy detail,  and  the  more  we  think  of  it,  the 
more  easily  do  we  become  convinced  that  as  the 
second  Evangelist  did  not  relate  in  what  way  the 
Son  of  God  had  been  made  one  of  us,  he  watched 
most  closely  over  his  expressions,  so  as  to  say 
nothing  that  might  lead  astray  or  even  merely 
shock  the  faithful. 

Again,  it  may  be  that  the  insistence  with  which 
St.  Mark  calls  Jesus  "the  Son  of  God,"  f  must 


*  Mark  6  3. 

t  Mark  i  i-  ",  3  "  (12) ;  5  ^  9  ^  (6) ;  14  ^^ ;  15  s^. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     137 

be  looked  upon  as  an  allusion  to  the  fact  of  His 
Virgin-Birth.*  True,  St.  Mark  speaks  twice  of 
the  "brothers  and  sisters"  of  Jesus  ;t  but  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  who  mention  expressly 
His  mother's  virginity,  use  the  same  expression.! 
Besides,  that  circumstance,  which  is  an  argument 
against  Mary's  perpetual  virginity,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  miraculous  birth  of  our  Lord.§ 


*  Cf.  McNabb,  O.  p.,  St.  Mark's  Witness  to  the  Virgin 
Birth,  in  the  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  April  1907; 
and  also  E.  Vacandard,  in  the  Revue  Pratique  d'Apolo- 
getique,  1907,  Vol.  IV,  p.  412. 

t63;  332, 

JMatt.  12^0;  Luke  8  20. 

§  Unless  some  account  is  made  of  a  Gnostic  writing  of 
the  2d  century,  the  Acts  of  Thomas,  in  which  the  Apostle 
Judas-Thomas  is  called  once,  perhaps  twice,  "the  twin  of 
the  Lord."  Cf.  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Vol.  II,  p.  180  (1871)  ;  M.  Bonnet,  Suppl.  cod.  apocr.,  ii, 
p.  148  (Greek  text,  edit.  1903),  and  E.  Hennecke,  N cutest. 
Apokryphen,  p.  493.  (German  transl,  1904).  If  we  set 
aside  that  rather  strange  and  merely  incidental  appellation, 
nothing  is  left  from  that  long-drawn  novel — it  is  divided 
into  thirteen  acts — to  give  us  any  hint  that  Thomas  is  the 
Lord's  twin.  He  is  usually  called  the  Apostle,  the  disciple, 
the  servant,  the  slave  of  Jesus,  and  he  himself  has  cer- 
tainly no  suspicion  of  that  relationship,  when  he  says :  "I 
am  not  Jesus,  but  the  servant  of  Jesus;  I  am  not  the 
Messias,  but  one  of  those  who  minister  in  his  presence ; 
I  am  not  the  Son  of  God,  but  I  pray  that  I  may  be  found 
worthy  of  God."     Cf.  Bonnet,  ii,  270.     True,  Jesus  calls 


138         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  Mary  is 
apparently  unacquainted  with  the  great  destiny  of 
her  Son:  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  if  the 
Angel  Gabriel  really  spoke  to  her  in  the  words 
related  by  St.  Luke  (i  s"").  At  the  beginning 
of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus,  like  His  brethren, 

him  "His  brother,"  but  then  this  appellation  has  just  the 
same  bearing  as  in  the  Gospels  (Matt.  12^^,  25*0,  281°, 
and  corresponding  passages  in  the  other  Evangelists.)  Th. 
Zahn  (Forschungen,  vi,  p.  348)  thinks  we  have  to  do 
"with  a  mere  fancy,  that  could  originate  only  from  one 
who  denied  the  extraordinary  prerogative  of  Jesus'  gene- 
ration." Personally  I  believe  that  the  whole  story  may 
be  accounted  for  by  a  local  popular  legend.  That  legend 
belongs  to  the  Syrians  who  give  very  often  to  Thomas  the 
name  of  Judas  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  i,  13,  'lovi^ac  0  kqI  Gu/iag  )  and 
seems  to  be  founded  (a)  on  the  etymology  of  Thomas, 
called  AMv/zof  ;  cf.  John  ii  i**,  20  2*.  In  the  Clementine 
Homilies,  ii,  i,  the  name  of  his  twin,  Eliezer,  is  given;  (b) 
on  the  supernatural  power  by  means  of  which  the  Apostle 
of  India  can  assume  at  times  the  physical  features  of 
Jesus,  or  vice  versa,  so  that  the  Lord  says  to  the  son-in- 
law  of  King  Gundaphoros :  "I  am  not  Judas,  who  also  is 
Thomas;  I  am  his  brother."  (Cf.  Bonnet,  ii,  p.  116.) 
Those  legends,  far  from  having  any  regard  for  history, 
do  not  aim  even  at  consistency.  In  another  story,  a 
twin  sister,  named  Lydia,  is  ascribed  to  Thomas.  Perhaps 
the  last  echo  of  the  legend  of  Thomas  as  the  twin  of 
the  Lord  is  found  in  Priscillian,  edit.  Schepss,  Corp. 
script,  eccl.  latin.,  Vindob.,  1889,  p.  44.  "Judas  apostolus 
damans  ille  didymus  Domini";  and  yet  Priscillian  holds 
Christ's  Virgin-Birth.     {Ibid.,  p.  36.) 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     139 

she  does  not  believe  in  Him;  nay,  on  one  occasion 
she  joins  them  to  get  hold  of  Him,  thinking  "that 
He  was  beside  Himself,"  in  the  words  of  St. 
Mark.* 

In  this  objection  several  points,  which  are  at 
least  doubtful,  are  looked  upon  as  certain;  par- 
ticularly the  similarity  between  the  two  verses 
just  quoted.f     However,  even  supposing  we  make 


*  ^j  21,  Sl_ 

t  Mark  3  21  says  oi  nap'  avTov,  sui:  does  this  refer  to  the 
relatives  of  Jesus  or  to  some  of  His  disciples?  oni^iaTTj, 
quoniam  in  furorem  versus  est:  are  these  words  to  be 
taken  literally  or  with  a  grain  of  allowance,  as  containing 
a  hyperbole?  Besides,  "they  do  not  say  that  Jesus  is  out 
of  His  mind,  for  the  word  used  by  the  Evangelist  has 
not  in  the  New  Testament  that  definite  meaning,  and 
serves  to  designate  any  outburst  of  surprise,  of  wonder, 
of  awe,  of  enthusiasm ;  but  they  do  believe  that  He  is  in 
a  state  of  mystical  excitement,  which  deprives  Him  of  the 
proper  sense  of  life  and  of  His  own  condition."  Loisy, 
in  the  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter,  relig.,  1904,  p.  439.— 'EAe}-oi', 
dicebant:  is  this  a  remark  of  the  crowd  or  of  those  who 
were  jealous  of  Jesus,  or  of  His  kindred?  And  if  it 
comes  from  the  last  mentioned,  do  they  speak  through 
conviction  or  merely  in  order  to  excuse  Jesus  before  His 
enemies?  Above  all,  are  the  kindred  of  the  Lord,  re- 
ferred to  in  verse  21,  to  be  identified  with  those  called 
His  "brethren"  in  verse  31  ? — So  many  disputed,  and  some, 
rightly  disputed  questions.  We  may  abide  by  the  sentiment 
of  Maldonatus,  in  Marc.  3  ^i,  who  looks  upon  verses  21  and 
31  as  parallel,  and  yet  even  after  accepting  that  hypothesis 


I40         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

all  possible  concessions.  Mary  may  have  joined 
the  company  of  her  relatives,  worried  as  she  was 
at  the  thought  of  the  dangers  to  which  her  divine 
Son  was  exposing  Himself :  the  indiscreet  assi- 
duity of  the  crowds  often  did  not  leave  Him  time 
even  to  eat,  and  the  Pharisees  were  already  show- 
ing their  jealousy  of  the  young  wonder-worker.* 
Even  though  St.  Luke  tells  us  expressly  that  Mary 
knew  beforehand  from  the  lips  of  an  Angel,  the 
Messianic  destiny  of  Jesus,  still  he  observes  that 
"His  father  and  mother  were  marvelling"  at  what 


does  not  hold  that  Mary  shared  the  view  of  those  who 
say  oTt  E^ecTT], — ^According  to  HerzoGj  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de 
Litter,  relig.,  1907,  p.  129,  Matt.  12  ^^,  and  Luke  8  i^,  sup- 
press on  purpose  the  remark  otI  e^earr/,  and  thus  "they 
have  left  on  the  text  of  Mark  a  scar  that  cannot  but 
strike  the  eyes."  The  difficulty  is  entitled  to  some  con- 
sideration, if  the  opponent  admits  the  primitive  character 
of  the  second  Gospel;  but  I  strongly  suspect  Herzog  of 
holding  Loisy's  actual  view  (in  the  same  Revue,  1903,  p. 
513),  according  to  which  our  canonical  Mark  is  not  a 
primitive  document.  If  that  is  the  case  and  if  the  second 
Evangelist  has  also  made  use  of  a  written  source,  on  what 
grounds  can  we  hold  that  he  found  6rt  Eisarri  in  his  docu- 
ment and  reproduced  it?  He  may  have  added  it  so  as 
to  usher  in  what  immediately  follows  in  his  text:  Quoniam 
Beelzebub  habet;  and  so,  far  from  "leaving  a  scar  on  the 
text  of  Mark,"  Matthew  and  Luke  would  be  nearer  to  the 
primitive  document  than  he  is  himself. 

*Mark  320-22. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     141 

was  said  in  His  regard.*  In  the  same  Gospel, 
Mary  asks  her  Son  the  reasons  of  His  conduct, 
the  first  time  He  takes  up  openly  the  work  of  His 
Father;  St.  Luke  does  not  hesitate  to  add  that 
His  parents  "did  not  understand  the  word  which 
He  spoke  to  them.^'f  Hence  his  would  be  indeed 
a  poor  psychological  sense,  who  would  be  puzzled 
at  the  fact  that  Mary  was  surprised,  in  proportion 
as  she  gradually  witnessed  the  wonders  that  had 
been  foretold  her.  The  description  of  an  event  or 
of  an  object,  made  to  us  beforehand,  does  not 
preclude  feelings  of  admiration  nor  of  awe  from 
arising  in  our  souls,  the  first  time  that  event  or 
that  object  comes  actually  under  our  eyes;  and 
this  is  true  especially  of  prophecies,  the  subject 
of  which  remains  more  or  less  obscure  until  their 
fulfilment  becomes  a  fact  of  experience.  In 
fine,  he  has  failed  to  read  into  a  mother's  heart, 
who  wonders  at  the  feelings  which  the  Blessed 
Virgin  experiences,  when  she  beholds  the  gradual 
unfolding  of  the  drama  which  will  take  Jesus  to 
Calvary.  Christ's  mother,  supernaturally  en- 
lightened, in  all  their  details,  about  all  the  events 
which  are  to  make  up  the  life  of  her  Son,  and 


*Luke  28*. 

t  Luke  2  49-60. 


142         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

then  unfeelingly,  with  dry  eyes,  contemplating 
their  actual  occurrence,  would  be  a  type  worthy 
of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels. 


St.  John  does  not  seem  to  have  paid  any  atten- 
tion to  the  human  origin  of  Jesus,  nor  had  he  to 
take  it  into  account,  since  his  purpose  was  to 
write  down  the  Gospel  of  the  Incarnate  Word. 
His  silence  on  this  point  is  explained  in  the  same 
way  as  in  the  other  points,  when  his  text  is  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  Synoptics.  True,  several 
New  Testament  theologians  look  upon  the  In- 
carnation as  being,  in  the  Johannine  Christology, 
the  equivalent  of  the  supernatural  conception;  but 
it  does  not  suffice  to  build  and  propose  abstract 
theories ;  they  must  also  be  based  on  texts  and  his- 
tory.*   We  shall  take  up  this  subject  later. 


*  According  to  H.  Holtzmann,  Lehrhuch  der  neutestam. 
Theologie,  ii,  419,  we  should  infer  from  John  i  ^^^  542^ 
7  28,  that,  in  the  eyes  of  the  fourth  Evangelist,  Jesus  was 
born  like  other  men.   To  these  passages  we  may  oppose  the 

following,    114,313,6  38,44,61,82,     8  38.    46,    58^    IQ  28-81^    „  26^ 

which  are  much  better  understood  in  the  hypothesis  of  the 
Virginal  conception.  Cf.  A.  Carr,  The  Testimony  of  St. 
John  on  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Our  Lord,  in  The  Expositor, 
April,  1907,  p.  311 ;  and  The  Virgin  Birth  in  St.  John's  Gos- 
pel, in  The  Expository  Times,  1907,  Vol.  XVIII,  p.  521. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     143 

Even  granting  it  is  real,  St.  John's  silence 
rather  confirms  the  traditional  faith.  "It  is  be- 
yond all  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  knew  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke.  If  his  belief  had  been  contrary  to  that  of 
the  two  writers  of  the  'Gospel  of  the  Infancy 
of  Jesus,'  why,  we  ask,  did  he  not  emphatically 
assert  his  own  faith  in  opposition  to  the  new 
dogma  which  was  beginning  to  creep  into  the 
churches?  Would  silence  have  sufficed  to  vindi- 
cate his  orthodoxy?  Are  we  not  justified,  then, 
in  interpreting  the  silence  of  St.  John  as  really 
favorable  to  our  thesis  and  in  believing  that  St, 
John  accepted  unreservedly  the  fact  of  the  super- 
natural birth?"  * 

Besides,  we  may  add  that,  far  from  being  left 
aside,  that  truth  is  probably  expressed  in  the 
fourth  Gospel.  Contemporary  critics  take  into 
account  a  variant  discovered  in  the  Prologue  of 
St.  John  (i  ^^),  which  so  far  had  remained  almost 
unnoticed.  The  Received  Text  reads :  "Who 
not  from  blood,  nor  from  the  desire  of  the  flesh, 
nor  from  the  will  of  man,  but  from  God  zvere 
horn."  Now,  most  of  the  writers  of  the  2d  cen- 
tury read  in  the  last  member  of  the  phrase :  "bitt 
from  God  was  horn"  and  these  words  they  refer, 

*  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  p.  60. 


144         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

not  to  the  birth  of  the  faithful  to  the  supernatural 
life,  but  to  the  temporal  birth  of  the  Word  of  God. 
True,  Tertullian  is  the  only  one  who  explicitly 
holds  that  reading;  but  St.  Justin,  St.  Irenseus 
and  perhaps  St.  Hippolytus  seem,  on  various  occa- 
sions, to  imply  it  and  even  to  quote  it.  In  the 
present  state  of  the  question,  we  may  say  that  St. 
John  probably  referred  in  that  passage  to  the 
most  undefiled  source  from  which  the  Word  be- 
come man  drew  its  human  life.* 


*  The  reading  og  kyevvfjdT],  (instead  of  ot  kyEw^drjaav)  is  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  Tertull.,  De  Came  Christi,  c. 
xix  and  xxiv;  St.  Iren.,  Adv.  Hceres.,  Ill,  xxvi,  2;  xix,  2; 
xxi,  5,  6;  V,  i,  3;  the  codex  veron.  (&)  and  perhaps  D; 
St.  Justin,  Apolog.  i,  32;  Dialog.,  54,  61,  63,  y6,  84;  St, 
Hippolytus,  Ref.  Har.,  vi,  9;  cf.  St.  August.,  Confess., 
VII,  ix,  2.  Nay,  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch  seems  to  quote 
John  1 13  and  to  insinuate  the  reading  ogiyevvydr]^  in  the 
luminous  formula  of  the  virginal  conception,  which  he 
gives  at  the  beginning  of  his  letter  to  the  Christians  of 
Smyrna.  Cf.  LoisY,  Le  Quatrieme  Evangile,  p.  166,  note. 
Nowadays,  that  reading  is  held  as  certain  or  at  least  as 
probable  by  Resch,  Kindheitsevangelium  in  Texte  und 
Untersuch.  (Harnack),  x,  3,  pp.  88,  89,  249,  250;  Loisy, 
Le  Quatrieme  Evangile,  p.  177-180,  although  he  does  not 
look  upon  it  as  an  allusion  to  the  virginal  conception; 
Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  p.  61,  Others  dismiss  it  as 
a  textual  alteration :  Th.  Calmes,  Rev.  Bibl,  1900,  p.  394 ; 
Westcott-Hort,  The  New  Test,  in  the  Original  Greek, 
Appendix,  p.  74;  Holtzmann,  Handcomm.  sum  N.  T., 
Vol.  IV  2,  p.  34;  Reville,  Le  Quatrieme  Evangile,  1902,  p. 


Detailed  Criticism  of  Text  of  Gospels.     145 

The  well-known  Anglican  Bishop  and  scholar, 
Dr.  Gore,  has  suggested  another  consideration 
which  is  not  without  some  importance.  All  know 
that  Cerinthus  was  St.  John's  opponent;  nay,  it 
was  in  order  to  counteract  the  effect  of  his  preach- 
ing, that  the  Apostle  made  up  his  mind  to  write 
the  fourth  Gospel.  Now,  Cerinthus  denied  the 
reality  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Divine  Word, 
and  consequently  the  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus. 
According  to  Rose,  this  argument  is  not  con- 
clusive. "We  give  this  argument  as  merely 
probable,"  he  says,  "it  has  not,  in  our  judgment, 
that  certainty  which  is  sometimes  attributed  to  it. 
No  doubt  Cerinthus,  denying  the  reality  of  the 
Incarnation  did  assign  to  Jesus  a  purely  human 
origin,  but  this  is  only  of  secondary  importance 
after  all,  since  the  Incarnation  is  not  founded 
upon  the  miraculous  Conception,  and  does  not 
actually  require  it.  The  Apostle's  object  princi- 
pally was  to  establish  that  the  union  of  the  Word 
with  the  human  nature  was  substantial,  and  he 
might,  therefore,  have  left  the  question  of  the 
miraculous  birth  unconsidered."  * 

102,  note;  however,  our  readers  may  observe  that  these 
last  two  writers  frankly  declare  that  they  deny  the  primi- 
tive character  of  this  variant,  precisely  because  it  witnesses 
in  behalf  of  Christ's  supernatural  conception. 

*  Gore,  Dissertations  on  Subjects  Connected  with  the 
Incarnation,  p.  8;  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  p.  62. 


146         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

If,  like  the  author  we  have  just  quoted,  we 
consider  the  question  merely  from  a  speculative 
point  of  view  and  take  into  account  only  what  is 
absolutely  possible,  the  objection  raised  against 
Gore's  view  cannot  be  answered.  But  is  this 
truly  the  way  in  which  the  question  must  be  put? 
In  the  dispute  between  St.  John  and  Cerinthus, 
was  not  the  supernatural  conception  of  Jesus 
bound  up  de  facto  with  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Word,  so  that  to  deny  one  point  implied  also,  as 
a  consequence,  the  rejection  of  the  other?  That 
this  was  the  way  in  which  things  occurred  actually 
in  Asia,  is  suggested  by  the  texts  of  St.  Ignatius 
and  of  St.  Irenasus,  already  quoted;  the  argu- 
ment upon  which  the  latter  grounds  Christ's 
divinity  is  especially  significant  and  worth  notic- 
ing.* 


Now,  we  have  examined  all  the  Gospel  pas- 
sages to  which  our  opponents  appeal  to  uphold 
their   denial   of   the   primitive   character   of   the 


*  Cf.  above  pp.  61-62,  and  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  27s,  ff.  The  reader  may  find  in  Resch,  Kind- 
heitsevangelium,  pp.  243-255,  a  suggestive  comparison  be- 
tween the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  and  the  prologue  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  John. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  147 

Christian  belief  in  the  Virgin-Mother.  The 
reader  may  judge  whether  or  not  we  were  right, 
when,  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  chapter,  we 
said  that  whilst  all  that  display  of  erudition  can 
impress  those  who  witness  it  at  a  distance,  they 
who  examine  it  more  closely  come  soon  to  realize 
that  it  is  a  mere  scare-crow. 

CHAPTER  V. 

COMPARISON    BETWEEN    THE    GOSPELS    AND    THE 
OTHER  PARTS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Although  St.  Paul  mentions  nowhere  ex- 
pressly Christ's  supernatural  Conception,  yet  noth- 
ing whatever  can  justify  us  to  say  that  he  is 
ignorant  of  it,  and  still  less  can  we  say  that  he 
denies  it.*  On  the  contrary,  his  Christology 
agrees  much  better  with  that  hypothesis :  nay, 
there  may  be  in  some  of  his  Epistles,  for  instance 
in  that  to  the  Galatians,  several  texts  that  actually 
imply  it.  With  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin-Birth 
before  our  eyes,  we  fully  account  for  the  Apostle's 
idea  of  the  Heavenly  origin  of  Jesus  and  His  un- 
paralleled holiness. 


*As    is    done   by   Reuss,    Meyer,    Sabatier,   Weizsacker, 
Pfleiderer,  Lobstein,  Holtzmann  and  others. 


148         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  reserve,  or — if  you  prefer — the  silence  of 
Paul  about  the  way  in  which  the  Son  of  God  came 
into  this  world,  is  no  puzzle  for  those  who  re- 
member that  all  through  his  Epistles,  which  make 
up  one-third  of  the  New  Testament,  he  retains 
but  a  few  facts  of  Jesus'  earthly  life :  the  Euchar- 
ist, the  death  on  the  Cross,  the  Resurrection  and 
the  Ascension.  It  is  only  in  the  way  of  allusion 
that  the  Apostle  refers  briefly  to  what  concerns 
the  ministry  of  John,*  the  preaching  and  the 
miracles  of  the  Lord. 

The  Epistles  are  addressed  to  a  certain  number 
of  Christians,  who  are  supposed  to  know  the 
essential  facts  and  teachings  of  the  Gospel :  they 
are  no  mere  repetition  of  the  cathechesis  by  which 
they  have  been  preceded. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  suppose  that  the 
Apostle  was  unacquainted  with  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy,  related  in  detail  by  his  disciple.  Even 
setting  aside  the  testimony  of  tradition,  which 
affirms  the  existence  of  personal  relations  between 
Paul  and  Luke,  the  study  of  the  texts  alone  suf- 


*  Once,  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia,  he  explicitly  mentions  the 
ministry  of  the  Baptist,  Acts  13  24-25_  Jhe  analysis  of  that 
discourse  enables  us  to  ascertain  that,  in  his  catechesis,  St. 
Paul  followed  the  method  of  the  Apostles:  Cf.  Acts  a^^-^S; 

o  12-26  •    y  l-53_ 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  149 

fices  to  show  the  close  connection  between  the 
Epistles,  on  one  hand,  and  the  third  Gospel  and 
the  Acts,  on  the  other.* 

Most  ecclesiastical  writers  of  old  saw  a  rather 
definite  statement  of  the  Virgin-Birth  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (4  *),  where  St.  Paul  says 
of  Christ  that  He  was  horn,  literally  "that  He  was 
made  of  a  woman." f  Modern  commentators  are 
less  positive;  the  most  confident  of  them  believe 
that,  if  the  supernatural  Conception  is  here 
formulated,  it  is  rather  as  a  mere  suggestion,  as 
a  hint,  that  can  be  understood  only  by  those  who 
believe  already  in  the  mystery.  By  using  that 
language,  they  say,  the  Apostle  may  have  meant 
to  designate  only  the  reality  of  Christ's  human 
nature,  with  an  allusion  to  Genesis  (3"),  and 
oppose  beforehand  the  Valentinians  and  the 
Docetae,  who  gradually  came  to  deny  that  Jesus 
had  taken  a  true  body  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin 

*  Tertull.,  Adv.  Marc,  iv,  2;  St.  Iren.,  Adv.  Hcsr.,  x,  i ; 
Canon  of  Muratori,  lin.  iii ;— A.  Resch,  Das  Kindheits- 
cvauncUum,  pp.  264-276;  A.  Plummer,  Commentary  on  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Luke,  pp.  xliii-Iix ;  Harnack,  Luke 
the  Physician,  pp.  1-25. 

T  Efa7T'eo"TeiA«>'  6  fleb?  Toi/   v'Cov    avToO,    ytvofLtvov    (k    yvvaiKoi,  ytvofitvov 

vnh'  I'dMoi'.  The  reader  may  find  in  Petau,  De  Incarnatione 
Verbi,  V,  xvi,  the  Fathers'  comments  on  this  passage;  that 
of  St.  Irenaeus,  III,  xxii,  i,  is  especially  remarkable. 


150         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Mary.  At  all  events,  they  add,  the  Biblical  ex- 
pression, "Begotten  of  woman"  t'cwtjto?  yuvaixd^, 
which  seems  so  similar  to  that  which  we  read 
here  in  St.  Paul,  Yzvd;j.e>o<;  hyuvauu<},  is  a  mere  para- 
phrase, equivalent  to  avdptuTnxs,  man* 

We  may  well  ask  ourselves  if  this  change  of 
position  is  not  due  to  an  excessive  timidity  in 
face  of  the  denials  of  liberal  scholars. f  For, 
after  all,  there  is  a  difference  between  the  poetical 
Hebrew  idiom  "son  of  woman"  and  the  peculiar 
expression  "Born  of  woman,"  which  is  used  no- 
where else,  not  even  by  St.  Paul.  The  LXX  had 
translated  by  ^swijtw?  yuvauo?  the  Hebrew  ialoud 
ishsha,  which  refers  to  what  is  most  infirm 
and  weak  and  defiled  in  the  fruit  of  the 
woman,  and  this  shade  of  meaning  may  not  be 


*JoB  14 1;  Matt,  ii  ". 


t  "Traditional  commentators  see  in  the  qualificative 
ytvoiLfvov  €K  yvvaiKOi  an  allusion  to  the  supernatural  con- 
ception of  Jesus  in  the  womb  of  a  virgin,  i.  e.,  without 
man's  cooperation.  In  this  they  are  greatly  mistaken.  Not 
only  is  this  idea  absent  from  the  text,  but  even  it  is  ex- 
plicitly opposed  by  the  thought  that  is  in  the  text.  The 
being  born  of  a  woman  is  here  called  thus,  in  order 
not  to  be  distinguished  from  other  men,  but  rather  to  be 
likened  to  them."  A  Sabatier,  L'Apotre  Paul,  3d  edit.,  pp. 
415-416.  (The  English  translation  was  made  from  the  2d 
French  edition  and  does  not  contain  the  appendix  from 
which  those  words  are  quoted.) 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  151 

absent  from  the  text  of  St.  Matthew  (11  "),  in 
which  the  native  lowHness  of  the  man  contrasts 
easily  with  the  glory  of  the  prophetical  calling. 
That  St.  Paul's  aim  is  to  emphasize  the  reality 
of  Christ's  human  nature,  let  it  be  granted;  but 
why  does  he  use  so  typical  an  expression,  when 
he  had  at  his  disposal  that  of  j'ewijro?  ^'ovaad?, 
so  familiar  to  all?  We  can  hardly  believe  that 
this  is  an  unimportant  detail  of  grammar,  espe- 
cially under  the  pen  of  a  writer  who,  in  keeping 
with  Jewish  notions,  was  most  probably  reluctant 
to  dwell  on  the  maternal  generation.  Is  it  not 
more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Apostle  meant 
to  insinuate  that  Christ's  relation  to  His  mother 
was  of  a  most  uncommon  and  unique  kind?  * 

Protestant  interpreters  dispute  among  them- 
selves as  to  whether  or  not  the  Virgin-Birth  is  a 
necessary  corollary  of  the  Pauline  teaching  on 
the  redemption.  Whilst  A.  Sabatier  holds  the 
negative,   Godet   claims  that   as   St.   Paul  bases 


*  In  the  expression,  yev6y.fvo^  Ik  yvvai.Ko<;,  the  particle  « 
may  signify  the  adequate  material  cause,  just  as  in  a  some- 
what forgotten  passage,  /  Cor.,  11 12^  where  we  read,  with 
a  manifest  allusion  to  Gen.,  2  ^s  :  yvv^  u  toC  ovSpds,  woman 
taken  out,  made  of  man.  The  Fathers  had  already  ob- 
served that  yvvrj  and  jrap9eVos  are  not  necessarily  incompatible. 
Cf.  St.  Jerome,  Comm.  in  Galat.,  iv,  4;  St.  August.,  Sermo 
clxxxvi  (al.  xix),  De  temp.,  3. 

12 


152         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

on  original  sin  his  theological  system,  it  follows 
that  an  innocent  victim  alone  can  atone  for  the 
guilty.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  is  the  express 
view  of  the  Apostle.*  But,  then,  how  shall  we 
account  for  that  native  innocence  of  Christ,  if 
His  life  originated  from  the  same  defiled  source 
as  the  life  of  other  men? 

As  we  have  said  already,  if  we  take  the  ques- 
tion from  the  point  of  view  of  mere  possibility, 
the  argument  is  not  conclusive,  for,  rigorously 
speaking,  we  can  suppose  a  sinless  Christ,  sancti- 
fied from  His  mother's  womb,  who,  however, 
would  have  been  conceived  and  born  just  like 
other  men.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  this 
hypothesis  hardly  agrees  with  the  train  of  thought 
found  all  through  the  system  of  St.  Paul.  St. 
Irenseus  was  struck  by  the  comparison  the  Apostle 
draws  between  the  first  and  the  second  Adam, 
and  concludes  that,  just  as  the  former  was  drawn 
from  a  virgin  earth,  so  the  latter  must  have  been 
born  of  a  Virgin  mother. f 


♦//  Cor.  521;  Eph.  2  3-5;  cf.  Rom.  1221. 

^ Adv.  Hcer.,  Ill,  xxi,  10;  V,  i,  3.  The  same  idea  has 
been  taken  up  by  Neander,  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  17;  and  still 
more  recently  by  Lechler,  Schmid  and  B.  Weiss. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  153 


How  can  St.  Paul's  explicit  declaration  that 
Christ  according  to  the  flesh  is  the  descendant  of 
David,*  agree  with  the  belief  in  the  virginal  con- 
ception ? 

The  same  question  should  be  asked  regarding 
the  first  and  third  Gospels.  Although  they  ex- 
pressly declare  that  Joseph  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  human  generation  of  Jesus,  St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  Luke  hold  it  as  certain  that  the 
Virgin's  Son  is  truly  the  descendant,  the  heir  of 
David,  foretold  by  the  Prophets.  In  this  con- 
nection most  authors  strive  to  prove  at  length 
that,  like  Joseph,  her  husband,  Mary  belonged  to 
the  family  of  David.     Their  view  can  be  upheld  f 

*Rom.  I  3,  4 13,  95,  15 12  (cf.  Apoc.  55,  22 1«);  Galat. 
3^^;  //  Tim.  2^;  Acts  13  ^^  where  the  term  used  by  St. 
Paul  is  especially  significant :  airipua,  seed,  being  the  ren- 
dering of  the  Hebrew  zera. 

t  On  this  subject  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  Patrizi, 
De  Evangeliis,  III,  Diss,  vi,  p.  14;  Keim,  Jesus  of  Nazara, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  24,  ff. ;  DiDON,  Jesus  Christ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  430- 
432.  St.  Justin,  Dialog.,  43,  45,  100;  St.  Iren^us,  III, 
xxi,  5 ;  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  x ;  the  Gospel  of  the 
Nativity  of  Mary;  the  Sinaitic  version  of  the  Gospels, 
Luke  2  ^,  hold  that  Mary  belonged  to  the  house  of  David ; 
St.  Augustine,  De  Cons.  Evang.,  II,  i,  even  says  that  no 
other  view  can  be  held.  Commentators  usually  treat  the 
question  in  connection  with  Luke  i  ^7.  Cf.  O.  Barden- 
HEWER,  Maria  Verkilndigung,  in  Biblische  Studien,  Vol.  X, 
1905,  5th  fasc,  pp.  74-82. 


154         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

— we  grant — is  even  certain,  but  is  it  necessary 
and  does  it  suffice  to  account  for  the  Davidic 
descent  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  St.  Paul's 
meaning?    We  may  doubt  it. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Apostle,  as  in  those  of  his 
contemporaries,  he  is  a  Son  of  David,  whom  the 
Jewish  Law  acknowledges  as  such.  Now,  before 
the  Law,  Joseph  is  really  the  father  of  Jesus, 
although  the  natural  paternity  is  only  presumed. 
Evidently  the  case  of  a  husband  whose  wife  con- 
ceives supernaturally  was  not  foreseen  in  the 
Mosaic  law;  however,  the  rights  of  Joseph  over 
Jesus  are  legally  just  as  real  as  those  granted 
by  the  law  of  the  levirate;  they  are  even  more 
real.*  From  the  legal  point  of  view,  which  was 
so  important  among  the  Jews  and  to  which  alone 
attention  was  paid  in  genealogies,  Jesus  is  the 
true  descendant  of  Joseph,  since  He  was  born  of 
his  lawful  wife  and  is  not  a  child  of  adultery. 
This  is  why  St.  Matthew,  and  most  probably  St. 
Luke  himself,  connect  Christ  with  David,  through 
the  genealogy  of  Joseph,  His  reputed  father. 

We  need  not  insist  especially  on  the  terms  used 
by  St.   Paul.      The  incidental  phrase  xara  adpxa, 


*Cf.  Grimm,  Die  Einheit  der  vier  Evangelien,  p.  239, 
and  Das  Leben  Jesu,  I,  122,  206;  Funk,  in  Zeitschrift  filr 
Kat.  Theol,  1888,  p.  657. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  155 

secundum  carnem,  contrasted  with  xara  msu/xa, 
secundum  spiritum,'*'  signifies  human  nature  in 
all  its  integrity,  and  not  merely  the  body  of  Jesus. 

As  man,  Christ  is  the  Son  of  David:  but  this 
is  neither  His  only  nor  His  chief  dignity.  Be- 
sides that  prerogative,  which  draws  its  source 
from  flesh  and  blood,  He  enjoys  another,  of  a 
spiritual  and  heavenly  kind :  and  through  the 
latter,  He  is  connected  with  God  as  an  only  son 
to  his  father.  That  passage  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  clearly  sets  forth  what  is  put,  in 
indistinct  and  half-concealed  words,  by  the  first 
three  Evangelists,  on  the  lips  of  Jesus  Himself, 
on  the  day  he  asked  the  Pharisees  whose  son  the 
Messias  was  to  be.f 

According  to  Herzog,  Jesus  protested,  on  that 
occasion,  in  the  name  of  Holy  Writ  itself,  against 
the  title  "Son  of  David"  bestowed  on  Him  by 
popular  simplicity.!     In  this  case,  even  more  than 


*  Rom.  I  *.  The  text  of  Acts  2  3o^  j^  fructu  lumbi  ejus, 
is  not  more  conclusive  than  those  just  studied.  St  Peter 
makes  use  of  the  Hebrew  phrase  currently  used  to  designate 
a  descendant,  an  offspring.  Then,  too,  there  is  a  direct 
allusion  to  //  Kings  7  12,  which  must  literally  be  under- 
stood of  Solomon. 

*  Matt.  22  ^i-^e ;  Mark  12  35-38  j  Luke  20  *i-*5. 

%  La  Conception  Virginale  du  Christ,  in  the  Revue  d'Hist. 
et  de  Litter,  relig.,  1907,  p.  119. 


156         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

in  others,  his  exegetical  method,  so  brief  and 
dogmatic,  has  led  this  writer  to  unwarranted  con- 
clusions. All  grant,  I  suppose,  that  according  to 
is  actually,  the  Son  of  David.  Now,  when  relat- 
the  Synoptics  the  Messias  must  be  and  that  Jesus 
ing  the  episode  just  referred  to — and  all  three 
relate  it — they  have  certainly  no  suspicion  what- 
ever that  the  Lord  intended  to  deny  that  Davidic 
descent.  Which  shall  we  believe,  the  Evangelists 
or    .     .     .     Herzog? 

Likewise,  the  crowd  who  in  their  acclamations, 
used  indiscriminately  the  terms  "Messias"  or 
"Son  of  David,"  do  not  see  at  all  the  meaning 
which  some  modern  criticis  ascribe  to  the  ques- 
tion put  by  Jesus  to  the  Pharisees;  they  are  so 
deeply  convinced  of  having  the  same  thoughts  as 
the  Master,  that,  at  that  very  moment,  as  we  read 
in  St.  Mark,  "they  heard  Him  gladly." 

But,  then,  what  did  Jesus  mean  when  He  asked 
His  opponents :  Whose  Son  is  Christ  ?  Why  is 
it  that,  against  their  reply  that  the  Messias  is 
of  Davidic  descent,  He  raises  the  objection:  "If 
David  calls  Him  Lord,  how  is  He  his  son?" 
The  text  of  St.  Mark  supplies  us  with  the  answer. 
The  crowd  has  just  welcomed  the  prophet  of 
Nazareth  with  the  cry :  *  "Blessed  is  the  kingdom 

♦Mark  ii  ". 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  157 

of  your  father,  David,  which  comes!"  That 
acclamation  was  a  programme :  Jesus  is  to  be  the 
Messias  of  whom  they  dream,  He  is  to  raise  the 
throne  of  their  father  David  and  to  lead  them 
to  the  glorious  revenge  they  must  take  from  the 
oppressors  of  Israel.  Now,  that  is  precisely  the 
Messianic  part  Jesus  is  unwilling  to  play.  They 
are  mistaken,  who  expect  to  find  in  the  Messias 
David's  heir  only;  He  is  to  be  "greater  than 
Solomon."  *  His  human  origin  does  not  exhaust 
all  His  dignity,  it  is  not  even  its  predominant 
feature.  After  all,  His  calling  is  grounded  on 
a  title  far  greater  than  His  human  descent,  and 
that  is  why  David  himself  calls  Him  his  Lord. 

Jesus  does  not  infer  expressly  His  divine  Son- 
ship,  but  He  takes  the  minds  of  the  Jews  in  that 
direction.  According  to  Dalman,  if  the  passage 
does  not  refer  to  Christ's  origin,  we  must  see  in 
it  an  allusion  to  the  Virgin-Birth. f 


*  Matt.  12  *2. 


■f  The  Words  of  Jesus  (English  translation),  pp.  285. 
Herzog  has  thought  it  wise  to  place  his  interpretation  under 
the  authority  of  H.  Holtzmann.  In  reply  we  might  appeal 
to  Dalman,  Wendt,  Meyer-Weiss,  Zahn,  Allen,  etc.  .  .  . 
the  best,  however,  is  to  appeal  to  Holtzmann  himself. 
True,  the  page  quoted  by  Herzog  (Lehrb.  der  N.  T.  Theol., 
I,  p.  244)  lacks  precision ;  but  why  did  he  not  consult  p. 
258,  and  especially  the  same  author's  commentary  on  the 


158         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

How  can  the  Apostle  give  the  name  of  off- 
spring of  Abraham  and  of  David  to  Him  whose 
father  is  not  to  be  sought  among  the  descendants 
of  those  Patriarchs?  He  uses  these  terms  through 
one  of  those  legal  fictions,  that  are  judicially  just 
as  effective  as  the  relations  based  on  nature  itself. 
In  Deuteronomy  25  ^,  he  who  was  born  of  the 
levir  is  called  simply  the  offspring  (zera,  semen) 
of  a  man  who  really  died  childless,  merely  because 
in  the  eyes  of  the  law  the  latter  is  his  father,  even 
though  in  reality  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  his 
birth. 

This  view  of  Christ's  descent  is  not  a  novelty : 
it  is  met  already  in  Origen  and  in  St.  Augustine.* 
Hence  Knabenbauer  has  written  the  following 
words  that  express  the  same  view :  "St.  Augus- 

Synoptic  Gospels  (3d  edit,  1901,  p.  277)  ?  In  this  latter 
passage,  the  narrative  of  the  Gospels  is  explicitly  placed 
side  by  side  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  i  3*.  "The 
contrast  between  Christ  Kara  <rdp<co  =  eK  o-irepjiaro?  AoveiS,  and 
Christ  Kara  jr>'eCfia  =  Kvpios  riiidv  was  probably  present  to  the 
mind  of  the  Evangelist."  Cf.  Loisy,  Le  Quatrieme  Evan- 
gile,  p.  628.  True,  by  ascribing  apparently  to  a  subsequent 
theology  the  doctrine  suggested  by  the  Synoptics,  loc.  cit., 
Holtzmann  and  Loisy  are  more  self-consistent  than  Herzog, 
who  deems  historical  the  words  of  Jesus  related  in  that 
passage.    That  interpretation  fitted  better  his  thesis. 

*  Origen,  in  Rom.  i  ^ ;  St.  August.,  De  Cons.  Evang.,  II, 
cap.  1. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  159 

tine  and  Paschasiiis  Radbert  rightly  hold  that,  for 
this  only  reason,  namely  the  true  marriage  which 
existed  between  Mary  and  Joseph,  Christ  may 
and  must  be  called  the  Son  of  David,  even  though 
the  Virgin,  His  mother,  would  descend  in  no 
way  from  David."  *  One  of  St.  Luke's  latest 
Catholic  commentators  is  less  felicitous,  when  he 
claims  that  "Jesus  could  not  descend  from  David 
unless  His  mother  belonged  to  the  royal  race."  f 
And  yet,  by  a  kind  of  contradiction,  the  same 
author  admits  a  few  pages  after,  that  St.  Mat- 
thew intended  to  prove  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of 
David  by  giving  St.  Joseph's  genealogy. $ 

Not  only  is  Mary's  genealogy  unnecessary  to 
explain  how  through  His  human  nature,  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  David,  but  even,  taken  by  itself,  it 
seems  unable  to  prove  that  kinship.  For,  after 
all,  if  we  complete  St.  Paul  by  the  Evangelists,  it 
was  not  any  descent  whatever — for  instance,  that 
which  a  woman  might  enjoy — which  is  claimed 
for  Christ  by  our  texts;  it  is  that  descent  which, 
from  the  historical  point  of  view,  makes  Him 


*  Comment,  in  Evangel.  Matthai,  i,  p.  43. 

t  P.  GiRODON,  Comment,  crit.  ct  moral  sur  I'Evangile  selon 
S.  Luc,  p.  119- 

top.  cit.,  pp.  178-185. 


i6o         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  heir  of  David,  His  father.*  Now,  among 
the  Jews,  the  sceptre  never  devolved  upon  females, 
it  was  handed  on  from  the  father  to  one  of  his 
sons.  It  is  then,  through  Joseph  alone,  that 
Jesus  has  the  right  to  be  held  as  the  blessed  off- 
spring, promised  to  the  holy  King,  destined  to 
raise  his  house  from  its  ruins  and  to  sit  forever 
on  his  throne,  t  This  is  why  the  Evangelists  in- 
sist on  Joseph's  Davidic  descent. $ 


To  hold,  with  some  plausibility,  that  Christ's 
supernatural  conception  remained  altogether  out- 
side the  horizon  of  St.  Paul,  one  must  prove  that, 
in  his  doctrinal  system,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  does 
not  become  Messias  before  the  day  of  His  resur- 
rection, and  that  those  relations  with  God  are 
considered  only  from  the  theocratic  point  of  view 
of  the  Jews,  who  saw  in  their  kings  Yahweh's 
representatives  upon  earth.  In  this  case,  the 
Christology  of  the  Apostle  would  not  go  beyond 


*  Luke  i  ^2, 

tLuKE  1 32;  Acts  2^°,   15  ^^ ;  cf.  Psdni   131";   Amos 
9". 
%  Matt,  i  20 ;  Luke  i  ^'',  2  *. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  i6i 

that  of  Cerinthus:  Jesus  was  first  a  mere  man 
{Vdbq av0pu)T:o'?),2J\6.  He  remained  so,  until  the  mo- 
ment God  adopted  Him  as  His  Son,  by  intrusting 
Him  with  the  Messianic  mission. 

Two  texts  are  quoted  in  support  of  that  theory. 
In  his  discourse  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia,*  St.  Paul 
declared  that  God  had  fulfilled  the  promise  made 
to  the  Patriarchs,  when  He  raised  from  the  dead 
Jesus  of  Nazareth;  Yahweh  said  then  to  Him: 
"Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee."  The  Apostle  takes  up  the  same  idea  at 
the  beginning  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  when 
he  writes  that  "he  has  been  separated  unto  the 
gospel  of  God,  which  he  had  promised  before,  by 
his  prophets,  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  concerning 
his  Son,  who  was  made  to  him  of  the  seed  of 
David,  according  to  the  flesh,  who  was  constituted 
the  Son  of  God,  in  power,  according  to  the  Spirit 
of  holiness,  hy  his  resurrection  from  the  dead/'j 

If  the  interpreters,  who  aim  at  stating  with 
accuracy  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  in  this  regard,  had 
at  their  disposal  only  the  two  passages  just 
quoted,  their  commentary  might  remain  doubtful. 
But  the  Apostle  is  entitled,  more  than  many  other 


*Acts  1333. 
t  Rom.  1 2-4. 


1 62         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

writers,  not  to  be  judged  merely  from  four  lines ; 
of  all  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  he  is 
the  most  prolific,  and  he  has  fitly  developed  in 
his  Epistles  the  leading  ideas  of  his  theology. 
Now  taking  as  a  whole  the  doctrine  exposed  in 
those  Epistles,  it  is  beyond  question  that  Jesus 
did  not  begin  to  be  the  Son  of  God  on  the  day 
of  His  resurrection,  nor  on  any  other  day  of  His 
mortal  life.  As  Son  of  God,  He  existed  long 
before  He  showed  Himself  in  the  midst  of  men. 
In  the  Christology  of  the  Apostle,  Christ's  pre- 
existence  is  a  fundamental  point,  one  we  must 
always  keep  before  our  minds,  when  we  read  the 
Epistles.  Of  course,  for  St.  Paul,  as  for  the 
Evangelists,  the  title.  Son  of  God,  is  tantamount 
to  that  of  "Messias  " ;  but,  because  the  Apostle 
is  bent  on  setting  forth  its  whole  bearing,  he 
strives  to  trace  out  the  close  connection  which 
exists  between  these  two  prerogatives:  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  not  because  He  is  the  Messias; 
on  the  contrary.  He  is  the  Messias  because  He  is 
the  Son  of  God ;  the  Father  gives  Him  a  share  in 
the  salvation  and  government  of  the  world,  be- 
cause Christ  is  entitled  to  that  honor;  not  only 
does  He  come  from  God,  He  is  God. 

In  the  eyes  of  St.  Paul,  Jesus'  Divine  Sonship 
does  not  result  from  the  theophanies  near  the 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  163 

banks  of  the  Jordan  or  on  Mt.  Thabor,  nor  even 
from  His  supernatural  conception;  it  is  to  His 
eternal  origin  that  Christ  owes  His  unique  posi- 
tion as  regards  the  Father.  In  Him  we  have 
two  natures :  one  makes  Him  the  Son  of  David, 
a  member  of  the  human  family;  the  other  makes 
Him  the  Son  of  God,  unspeakably  associated  to 
the  life  of  His  Father. 

That  is  the  doctrine  expressly  taught  in  the 
Epistles  called  "of  the  captivity,"  written  from 
the  year  60  to  the  year  64.* 

Some  one  may  say  that  this  group  of  Epistles 
represents  a  later  stage  of  St.  Paul's  views  re- 
garding the  person  of  Christ.  To  answer  at  once 
that  objection, — which  can  be  also  directly  re- 
futed,— we  shall  simply  remark  that  Christ's  pre- 
existence  is  set  forth  quite  clearly  in  the  pages 
of  the  great  Epistles,  written  from  the  year  58 
to  the  year  60,  and  even  a  few  years  before,  ac- 
cording to  Harnack;  most  assuredly  they  repre- 
sent the  primitive  Christology  of  the  Apostle. 
Christ  accompanied  the  Hebrews  in  their  wander- 
ings through  the  wilderness;!  rich  and  innocent 
as  He  was,  He  became  poor,  and  for  our  sakes, 


*  Particularly  Philip.  2  6-12 ;  Coloss.  i  iB-21,  2  ». 
t  /  Cor.  10*. 


164         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

was  willing  to  be  treated  as  a  culprit ;  *  in  Him 
the  Father  gives  us  His  own  Son,t  a  second 
Adam  coming  down  from  Heaven.J  These  few 
thoughts  are  the  summary  of  those  which  St. 
Paul  develops  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  : 
Christ  annihilated  Himself,  since,  as  by  nature 
His  was  a  divine  condition,  He  assumed  of  His 
own  accord  the  condition  of  a  slave,  by  becoming 
one  of  us.§ 

According  to  H.  Holtzmann  "only  an  exegesis, 
swayed  by  the  anxious  desire  to  find  in  the  texts 
the  Rationalistic  conception,  has  led  some  to  think 
that  a  mere  ideal  existence  was  intended  here."  || 
Again,  Harnack  has  luminously  brought  out  the 
distinction  between  the  preexistence  claimed  for 
Christ  by  St.  Paul  (and  by  St.  John),  on  the  one 
hand,  and  that  kind  of  heavenly  existence  which 
the  Jews  used  then  to  ascribe  to  the  works  of 
God  upon  earth,  especially  to  the  most  excellent.^ 


*  //  Cor.  5  21,  8  9. 

fGalat.  4*-5;  Rom.  8  3.32.  !„  //  Cor.  4*,  Chirst  is  called 
God's  image,  a  significant  appellation,  if  compared  with 
Coloss,  1 15. 

%I  Cor.  1545-48. 

%  Philip.  26-8;  the  same  thought  is  found  in  Hch.  i. 

II  Lehrhuch  der  neutest.  Theologie,  1897,  II,  p.  82. 

^  History  of  Dogma,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1-14. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  165 

This  being  the  case,  we  must  infer  that  St. 
Paul  is  far  from  looking  upon  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth as  one  who  became  Christ  and  Son  of  God 
on  the  day  of  His  Resurrection.  Besides,  the 
text  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (i  *)  is  not  to 
be  translated — as  is  done  with  a  view  to  the  ques- 
tion— but  rather  as  follows :  "enthroned  Son  of 
God,  in  [the]  power  [that  befits  Him] ,  according 
to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  His  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  God  the  Father  declares  He  has  be- 
gotten His  Christ  on  that  day,  because  He  then 
bestowed  upon  Him  the  full  glory  and  authority 
which  He  deserves.  Who  is  the  only  Son,  the 
heir  of  all.  For  the  Apostle,  Jesus'  resurrection 
is  only  the  normal,  ultimate  consequence  of  His 
divine  origin.  This  is  perhaps  the  doctrine  which 
is  the  most  clearly  taught  in  the  Epistles;  and 
this  is  also  the  doctrine  set  forth  by  St.  Peter, 
when  he  states  that  God  raised  Jesus  from  the 
dead  because  it  was  impossible  that  hell  should 
hold  him.* 

We  may  push  still  further  the  comparison  be- 
tween the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  the  discourses 
of  St.  Peter,  recorded  at  the  beginning  of  the 
book  of  the  Acts.  The  first  time  that  Peter  an- 
nounces to  the  Jews  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  they 

*  Acts  2  2*. 


1 66         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

have  recently  crucified,  he  tells  them  that  "God 
hath  made  Him  {k-noiriasv)  both  the  Lord  and 
Christ"  promised  to  David;*  and  this  he  him- 
self explains  a  few  days  after,  by  saying  that 
"God  hath  glorified  (IWfo<rev)  His  Son  Jesus."  f 
Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  the  unction  Christ  has 
received  from  God ;  %  St.  John  does  likewise, 
although  he  had  expressly  said  before  that  Jesus 
is  from  the  beginning,  or  at  least  before  His 
baptism,  the  Incarnate  Word  of  God.§  When 
we  look  over  these  earliest  attempts  of  Apostolic 
catechesis,  we  feel  that  the  thought  goes  farther 
than  the  word,  which  purposely  aims  at  being 
discreet  and  reserved.  ||     For  these  preachers  of 


*  Ibid.,  2  38. 

t  Ibid.,  3^3. 

X  Ibid.,  4  27 ;  10  38. 

§  John  129-34^  10  36^  1 14. 

1 1  In  their  first  discourses  to  the  muhitudes,  the  Apostles 
are  wont  to  call  Jesus  a  prophet,  Christ,  a  man  approved  of 
God,  holy,  just,  a  child  or  servant  of  God  (wars  ®fov), 
David's  offspring.  These  words  imply  a  kind  of  peda- 
gogical adaptation.  In  their  first  contact  with  the  Jews, 
who  have  recently  rejected  Jesus  because  He  proclaimed 
Himself  the  Son  of  God,  the  Apostles  are  fond  of  using 
the  current  Messianic  terminology.  However,  those  ex- 
pressions de  piano  have  for  their  only  purpose  to  introduce 
that  of  Son  of  God.  Cf.  9  20,  13  33.  xhe  parallelism  between 


Gospels  and  Neiv  Testament  Compared.   167 

a  risen  Christ,  Jesus  is  not  merely  an  instrument 
of  salvation  in  the  hands  of  God,  Him  also  they 
proclaim  "the  prince  of  life,  dpxrjydv  rr^?  C<w^9,"* 
which  is  translated  in  the  Vulgate  by  auctorem 
vitcu,  expressions  which  St.  Paul  would  have  fully 
approved. 

Those  comparisons  had  to  be  made.  Together 
with  the  discourses  found  in  the  first  chapters  of 
the  Acts,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  the  oldest 
written  records  of  Christian  tradition.  Since  it 
is  there  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  our 
opponents,  we  must  look  for  "the  primitive  and 
genuine  sample  of  Apostolic  preaching,"  history 
entitles  us  to  affirm  that,  in  the  religious  knowl- 
edge and  equipment  of  the  early  Christians,  there 
was  room  for  the  faith  in  the  Virgin-Birth,  so 
much  so  that,  even  though  that  belief  were  af- 
firmed expressly  in  no  part  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, still  the  texts  themselves  would  favor  that 
hypothesis. 

Luke  i  ^  and  Acts  i  ^^,  attempted  by  Corssen,  Usener,  and 
others,  rests  on  a  misunderstanding.  The  complete  narra- 
tive which  the  Evangelist  intends  to  write  for  the  faithful 
is  one  thing,  and  the  object  of  the  first  Apostolic  catechesis, 
adapted  to  those  whom  the  Apostles  wished  to  convert  to 
the  faith  of  Jesus,  is  another  thing. 

*  Acts  3  " ;  cf .  Heb.  2 10. 


1 68         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 


In  presence  of  these  unquestionable  facts,  what 
becomes  of  the  theory  found  in  many  books,  of 
which  the  authors  claim  to  describe  the  historical 
development  of  the  New  Testament  ideas?  Ac- 
cording to  the  formula  borrowed  from  Otto 
Pfleiderer,*  the  Christian  dogma  regarding  the 
origin  of  Jesus  had  a  threefold  stage:  birth  ac- 
cording to  the  ordinary  laws,  followed  by  a  divine 
adoption  (at  the  time  of  the  resurrection  or  of 
the  baptism)  ;  miraculous  birth  through  the  action 
of  the  Holy  Ghost;  Incarnation  of  the  Word  of 
God.  This  is  one  of  those  fanciful  hypotheses, 
which  subsist  for  awhile,  resting,  as  they  do,  on 
preconceived  notions;  but  sooner  or  later  they 
must  fall,  because  they  are  not  founded  on  texts. 

At  this  conjuncture,  our  opp>onents,  driven  to 
their  last  shift,  make  another  appeal  to  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark.  Why  has  it  nothing  to  say  about 
Jesus'  infancy?  Why  does  it  typify  His  Mes- 
sianic mission  by  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  and  by 
a  heavenly  voice,  saying:  Thou  art  my  beloved 
Son;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased? — Long  before 
the  second  Gospel  had  been  written,  St.  Paul 
preached  the  doctrine  we  have  just  exposed.  Now 
to  place  in  his  Christology  a  Christ  who  is  a  Son 
♦  Cf .  above,  pp.  92-95. 


Gospels  ami  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  169 

of  God  merely  by  adoption,  is  to  introduce  into 
that  Christology  an  awful  blunder. 

Some  one  may  say  that  the  text' of  Mark  re- 
produces an  earlier  catechesis,  that  of  Peter. 
Granted;  but  how  do  you  know  that  the  Gospel 
of  Paul  differed  from  that  of  Peter?  Once  in- 
deed— toward  the  year  51 — this  was  claimed  by 
some  meddlesome  Judaizers.  Immediately  St. 
Paul  challenged  them  to  a  public  test;  he  went 
to  Jerusalem  and  there  submitted  his  preaching 
to  the  control  of  the  other  Apostles.  All  know 
how  the  test  turned  to  his  behalf.*  Had  Peter 
and  Paul  stood  for  opposite  traditions,  most  cer- 
tainly Mark  would  have  known  it,  since  he  had 
been  the  companion  of  the  two  Apostles. 

In  fine,  it  may  be  objected  that  at  the  time  the 
second  Evangelist  wrote  his  narrative — between 
the  year  60  and  the  year  70 — that  narrative  had 
a  mere  historical  value,  since  it  was  outdone  by 
the  actual  faith  of  the  Church,  and  especially  by 
the  theories  of  St.  Paul. — When  proposing  that 
argument,  the  opponent  loses  sight  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  school  with  which  he  is 
connected,  namely  the  principle  that  the  Gospel 
narrative  does  not  portray  the  historical  realities 


*  Gal.  2;  cf.  Acts  15. 


170         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

of  the  true  life  of  Jesus,  but  only  the  impression 
produced  by  the  belief  in  His  Messianic  calling, 
on  the  generation  coeval  with  the  Gospels.  This 
is,  of  course,  a  false  postidatum:  still,  it  should 
not  be  overlooked  by  any  one  who  has  placed  it 
at  the  basis  of  his  studies  on  the  Gospels. 

We  are  told  that  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word, 
proposed  in  St.  John,  is  simply  another  way  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  Jesus,  and  thus  attempts 
to  give  the  same  explanation  as  the  Virgin-Birth : 
the  synthesis  of  the  two  explanations  dates  from 
the  day  when  the  fourth  Gospel  succeeded  in  be- 
ing acknowledged  side  by  side  with  the  Synoptics. 
— The  assertion  overlooks  to  such  an  extent  the 
concrete  manner  in  which  Christianity  arose,  that 
such  an  explanation  has  not  even  the  least  shadow 
of  plausibility.  First  of  all,  our  opponents  think 
that  the  faith  of  the  Church  was  at  the  mercy 
of  a  literary  production:  the  apparition  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  or  of  the  Apocalypse  sufficed  to 
change  its  course.  They  forget  that  that  faith 
was  above  all  a  living  reality:  committed  by  the 
earliest  witnesses  to  the  collective  consciousness 
of  the  believers  who  feed  and  live  on  it,  that  faith, 
rudimentary  as  it  may  have  been,  is  grounded  on 
its  essential  elements  and  on  the  law  of  its  devel- 
opment.    Some  limits  it  knows  already:  a  book. 


Gospels  and  Other  N.T.  Books  Compared.  171 


even  though  bearing  the  name  of  an  Apostle, 
does  not  suffice  to  add  anything  to  it  or  to  take 
anything  from  it;  the  Hving  tradition  has  exer- 
cised a  supreme  control  over  the  literary  activity 
of  the  early  ages.*  How  many  apocryphal  Gos- 
pels have  utterly  failed,  when  confronted  witli 
the  primordial  requirements  of  Christian  dogma ! 
Again — and  this  is  an  important  and  decisive 
remark — long  before  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy 
had  been  written  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke, 
Christians  read  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  a  Chris - 
tology  equivalent  to  that  of  St.  John.  The  terms 
differ,  but  the  doctrine  is  just  the  same.  Him, 
who  St.  John  calls  the  "Word  of  God,"  St.  Paul 
calls  the  "own  Son  of  the  Father,"  and  where 
John  speaks  of  "incarnation,"  there  Paul  speaks 
of  "annihilation." 


*We  have  on  this  point  the  testimony  of  Papias.     Cf. 
Funk,  Patres  Apostolici,  1901,  Vol.  I,  p.  354- 


172         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
CHAPTER  VI. 

POSITIVE      TRUSTWORTHINESS      AND      HISTORICAL 

VALUE  OF  THE  TEXTS   CONCERNING 

JESUS'    INFANCY, 

ST.   LUKE    I,   2,   3  23-38_ 

The  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Luke  partake  of 
the  authority  which  is  ascribed  to  his  Gospel, 
taken  as  a  whole.  The  author  begins  by  stating 
that  he  took  carefully  his  information  from  eye- 
witnesses {aoTOTzrai) ,  from  those  who  had  first 
preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  It  is  after  taking 
up  all  these  things  from  the  very  beginning,  so 
as  to  control  their  exactness,  that  Luke  resolves 
on  composing  a  new  narrative.  He  wishes  to 
make  it  more  orderly  than  that  which  exists  al- 
ready, and  especially  more  fit  to  impart  to  The- 
ophilus  historical  certitude  as  to  the  origin  and 
early  steps  of  Christianity.*  In  these  conditions, 
why  should  we  suppose  that  the  third  Evangelist 
began  his  work  by  recording  pious  legends,  the 
spontaneous  growth  of  religious  instinct? 

There  is  nothing  in  his  text  to  prompt  us  to 
believe  that  he  ascribes  to  those  first  narratives 
a  special  character,  and  sees  in  them  a  kind  of 

*  Luke  i  i"*. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    173 

prehistory  of  the  Gospel.  Christ's  virginal  con- 
ception; His  birth  at  Bethlehem,  where  Angels 
reveal  Him  to  some  shepherds;  the  first  mani- 
festations of  the  divine  wisdom  of  the  Child 
Jesus,  when,  at  the  age  of  twelve,  He  joins  in 
the  Temple  the  Doctors  of  the  Law:  as  many 
facts  which  the  Evangelist  relates  in  the  most 
natural  tone,  just  as  anxious  of  accuracy  in  his 
statements  as  if  he  were  dealing  with  the  public 
life  of  our  Lord;  nay,  we  must  confess  that  here 
the  geographical  and  historical  surroundings  are 
much  better  defined  than  in  many  subsequent 
scenes  held  by  all  as  certainly  historical. 

It  goes  without  saying,  that  St.  Luke  must  have 
taken  very  special  and  careful  information  re- 
garding those  traditions  on  which  the  Apostolic 
catechesis  was  probably  silent.*     As  he  intended 


♦"Undoubtedly,  this  chapter  of  the  Hidden  Life  of  the 
Savior  did  not  come  as  a  part  of  the  primitive  Apostolic 
catechesis,  as  we  can  now  reconstruct  it  from  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  from  the  Epistles,  and  as  it  appears  more 
ingenuously  preserved  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel :  it  was  natural 
that  at  the  beginning,  attention  should  be  paid  chiefly  to 
the  redeeming  work  of  Jesus,  His  public  life.  His  suffering 
and  resurrection.  As  to  the  recollections  of  the  Master's 
infancy,  which  the  legitimate  curiosity  of  the  faithful  was 
soon  to  hold  in  so  great  account,  although  they  were  not 
first  the  subject  of  the  ordinary  and,  as  it  were,  official 
preaching,  yet  they  must  have  been  carefully  stored  away 


174         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

not  to  imitate  St.  Mark,  in  this  regard  the  third 
Evangehst  must  have  felt  the  importance  of  the 
step  he  was  taking  when  beginning  the  Gospel 
history  with  the  birth  of  Jesus.  A  close  and 
sifting  examination  was  necessary,  the  more  so 
that,  even  then,  fanciful  and  legendary  narra- 
tives regarding  the  earthly  origin  of  Jesus  must 
have  been  current.  We  should,  perhaps,  see  an 
allusion  to  those  attempts  at  adorning,  as  it  were, 
the  cradle  of  Christ,  in  the  first  words  of  the 
prologue,  in  which  St.  Luke  speaks  of  those 
"many,  who  have  undertaken  to  draw  up  a  nar- 
rative of  the  things  which  have  been  accomplished 
in  our  midst."  Had  he  looked  upon  the  work 
of  his  predecessors  as  altogether  satisfactory,  he 
would  have  given  up  the  pretension  to  do  better 
than  they  had  done. 

Granted,  some  one  may  say,  the  third  Evan- 
gelist intended  to  relate  history,  but  did  he  suc- 
ceed ?    As  he  lived  seventy  years  after  the  events, 

within  the  Apostolic  College  and  within  the  intimate  circle 
of  those  who  shared  in  some  way  or  other  in  those  early 
events."  Lepin,  Jesus,  Messie  et  Fils  de  Dieu,  1906, 
PP-  59-60.  Cf.  Arthur  Wright,  A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels 
in  Greek,  1903,  p.  xlii,  who,  however,  supposes  and  does 
not  prove,  that  the  mystery  of  the  Virgin-Birth  was  re- 
vealed only  towards  the  last  days  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    175 

how  did  he  ascertain  the  truth  of  the  facts  that 
are  exposed  at  length  in  the  first  two  chapters  of 
his  Gospel? 

Scholars  generally  admit  that  St.  Luke  devoted 
to  that  self-imposed  task  of  investigation  the  two 
years  of  his  forced  stay  at  Csesarea  of  Palestine, 
about  the  year  60.  St.  Paul  was  then  imprisoned, 
and  his  companion  had  all  the  necessary  leisure  to 
travel  all  over  Judaea  and  Galilee,  and  gather 
what  people  said  about  the  infancy  of  Christ.  He 
heard  several  witnesses  relate  what  they  had  seen : 
those  who  had  then  reached  an  old  age  may  have 
been  at  least  twenty  years  old,  when  Jesus  was 
born.  Not  all  those  whom  the  Gospel  calls  "the 
brethren  of  the  Lord"  were  dead,  and  of  course 
they  were  not  overlooked  by  St.  Luke.  Many 
years  later,  during  the  26.  century,  the  faithful 
still  surrounded  their  descendants  with  special 
regards,  and  called  them  Desposyni — i.  e.,  the 
"relatives  of  the  Lord." 

That  the  Mother  of  Jesus  was  still  living,  is 
not  at  all  improbable :  judging  from  the  most 
plausible  calculations,  she  was  then  about  eighty 
years  old.  At  all  events,  there  still  remained  in 
the  country  confidants  of  her  thoughts.  Then, 
too,  before  departing  from  this  world,  Elizabeth 
and  Anna  had  said  and  repeated  over  again  what 


176         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

they  knew  of  the  Son  of  Mary.  Who  were  the 
privileged  ones,  judged  worthy  to  hear  and  to 
witness,  at  the  proper  time,  the  mystery  with 
which  Jesus'  cradle  had  been  surrounded?  Here 
we  naturally  recall  those  holy  women  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  Gospels,  followed  the  Savior;  the 
usual  companions  of  Mary,  they  must  have  come 
into  close  intimacy  with  her.  That  St.  Luke  had 
access  to  this  circle — an  access  which  his  medical 
profession  made  still  easier — is  proved  by  his  text. 
Long  ago  it  has  been  observed  that  women  play 
an  important  part  in  the  third  Gospel,  especially 
in  what  pertains  to  the  childhood  of  Jesus. 

St.  Matthew's  narrative  is  conceived  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Joseph :  to  him  the  Angel  of  God 
always  appears;  on  the  contrary,  all  through  St. 
Luke's  narrative,  the  Mother  of  Jesus  remains  the 
chief  personage  of  the  scene:  she  there  appears 
between  Elizabeth  and  Anna,  whose  function  it  is 
to  proclaim  her  great  blessing  and  privilege.  Be- 
sides Mary,  the  mother  of  James  and  Joseph,  and 
Mary  Magdalen,  both  of  whom  are  known  to  the 
three  Evangelists,  St.  Luke  mentions  also  Su- 
sanna, Martha,  the  sister  of  Mary,  and  Joanna, 
the  wife  of  Chuza,  who  was  the  steward  of  Herod 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    177 

the  Tetrarch.*  Several  of  the  miracles  recorded 
only  in  the  third  Gospel  were  wrought  in  behalf 
of  women :  the  widow  of  Naim,  the  sinner  of  the 
seventh  chapter,  the  woman  of  Magdala,  the 
woman  healed  from  an  ailment  which  had  afflicted 
her  for  eighteen  years.  Besides,  there  are  also 
in  the  third  Gospel  several  scenes  in  which  women 
hold  the  foreground :  the  widow's  mite,  the  par- 
able of  the  unjust  judge,  the  daughters  of 
Jerusalem  weeping  over  Jesus,  the  welcome  ex- 
tended to  Him  in  the  house  of  Martha  and  Mary, 
the  woman  who  openly  proclaims  His  mother 
blessed.  The  same  remark  has  been  made  also 
about  the  book  of  the  Acts.-\ 

To  these  indications  there  is  added  a  more  deli- 
cate and  tender  touch,  a  peculiar  blending  of  feel- 
ings, which  tend  to  show  that  the  recollections  of 
the  holy  women  make  up  one  of  the  special  sources 
from  which   St.  Luke  drew  his  material.  |     To 


*  That  Chuza  is  probably  the  royal  officer  (^aaiXiicds) 
whose  name  is  not  given  in  St.  John  4*8-53^  who,  together 
with  his  family,  believed  in  Jesus.  St.  Luke  shows  himself 
well  acquainted,  especially  with  what  was  going  on  at  the 
court  of  Herod  :  3  i-ia,  8  3,  9  ^-9,  13  21,  23  7-12 ;  Acts  13  1. 

t  Cf.  I  ",  5  S  6  S  12 

I  That  is  the  view  of  Godet  and  Plummer,  in  their  com- 
mentaries of  St.  Luke,  and  still  more  recently  as  to  Plum- 
mer,  in  Diction,  of  Christ,  Vol.  I,  p.  76;  of  Ramsay,  was 


178         The  CliildJiood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  mother  who  saw  and  who  heard  we  must 
ultimately  ascribe  remarks  like  these :  "But  Mary 
kept  all  these  words,  pondering  them  in  her 
heart";  "His  father  and  mother  were  marveling 
at  the  things  which  were  spoken  about  Him" ; 
"they  did  not  understand  the  word  which  He 
spoke  to  them" ;  "and  His  mother  kept  all  these 
things  in  her  heart."  * 

Did  it  rest  merely  on  oral  traditions,  the  testi- 
mony of  the  third  Evangelist  would  force  itself 
already  upon  the  historian's  attention,  but  that  is 
not  all.  From  the  study  of  his  text,  it  has  been 
clearly  shown  that  the  first  chapters  depend  on 
an  earlier  document;  and  by  this  very  fact  his 
distance  between  the  witness  and  the  events  is 
considerably  decreased.  Most  critics,  believers 
or  unbelievers,  admit  that  in  these  chapters  we 
have,  if  not  a  Greek  translation,  at  least  a  quite 
literal  reproduction  of  a  Hebrew  or  Arabic  writ- 
ing, which  did  not  contain  the  genealogy  of  Jesus ; 
and  this  is  why  that  genealogy  is  given  by  the 

Christ  born  in  Bethlehem?  p.  88;  Lange,  Life  of  Christ, 
Vol.  I,  p.  258;  W.  Sanday,  The  Expository  Times,  April 
1903,  PP-  157,  297;  A.  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  1907, 
p.  151,  who  mentions  besides  the  witnesses  appealed  to  by 
St.  Luke,  the  daughters  of  Philip  the  Deacon,  Acts  21  ^-a. 

*  Luke  2  is-  33,  50,  si. 


Positive  TrustwortJiincss  of  the  Texts,    lyg 

third  Evangelist  in  the  third  chapter.  Both  in  its 
substance  and  in  its  form,  the  Gospel  of  the  In- 
fancy, in  St.  Luke,  betrays  its  origin.  Setting- 
aside  the  fine  sentence  of  the  prologue,  all  the  rest 
is  written  in  an  abrupt  style  and  with  a  most  de- 
cided Hebrew  ring.* 

Especially  in  the  first  chapter,  we  find  so  many 
precise  details  that  these  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
merely  oral  information.  St.  Luke,  who  had 
grown  up  in  the  midst  of  Greek  surroundings,  and 
had  received  his  education  at  Antioch  or  at  Tar- 
sus, was  probably  unfamiliar  with  Jewish  institu- 


*  Out  of  128  verses,  72  begin  with  the  transition  koX, 
which  is  repeated  at  times  in  six  or  seven  consecutive  num- 
bers. Others  begin  with  the  particle  iSov  or  xal  ISov, 
which  render  the  Hebrew  hinneh  or  wehinneh.  Finally 
some  phrases  which  open  with  koX  Jji/,  koI  eyeVero,  frequently 
recall  the  Biblical  wayehi.  The  phenomenon  is  so  striking 
that  A.  Resch  has  attempted  a  new  translation  of  that 
Hebrew  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  in  the  collection  Texfe  und 
Untersuchungen  sur  Geschichte  der  altchristlichen  Literatur, 
1897,  X,  3,  p.  203.  G.  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus  (Eng- 
lish translation),  p.  32,  is  incHned  to  see  in  it  a  primitive 
Aramaic  substratum.  A.  Plummer,  in  his  Commentary  on 
St.  Luke,  p.  45,  has  carefully  examined  all  the  passages  of 
the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts,  in  which  the  phrase  begins 
with  lyiviTo  or  KM  iyiviTo,  and  concludes  that  the  com- 
parison bespeaks  the  most  decided  Hebrew  ring  of  the  first 
two  chapters  of  the  Gospel.  Cf.  also  H.  Chase,  The  Gos- 
pels in  the  Light  of  Historical  Criticism,  in  the  Cambridge 
Theological  Essays,  London,  1905,  pp.  371-420. 


i8o         Tiie  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

tions :  the  Temple,  the  worship,  the  Priesthood. 
Now,  he  describes  all  these  things  with  the  great- 
est ease  and  with  the  most  accurate  terminology. 
Not  only  does  he  name  Zachary  and  his  wife, 
Elizabeth,  whom  he  calls  a  daughter  of  Aaron 
and  a  cousin  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  he  knows 
that  Zachary  was  fulfilling  his  functions,  accord- 
ing to  the  weekly  course,  called  of  Abias;  and 
here  St.  Luke  uses  the  most  technical  term 
i^Tj/iepia,  which,  besides,  he  is  the  only  one  to 
use,  out  of  all  the  New  Testament  writers.  He 
is  acquainted  with  the  arrangement  of  the  Temple, 
the  place  of  the  altar,  the  hour  of  incense  when 
the  priest  has  to  go  within  the  Holy  Place,  whilst 
the  people  pray  without,  until  the  ceremony  is 
over;  nay,  the  Evangelist  seems  to  see  the  par- 
ticular spot  where  the  Angel  stood : — on  the  right 
side  of  the  altar  of  incense.  He  knows  that  the 
prophetess  Anna  lived  only  seven  years  with  her 
husband,  that  afterward  she  did  not  remarry  and 
that  she  was  eighty-four  years  old  at  the  time  of 
the  presentation  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple. 

That  detailed  description,  which  betrays  an  eye- 
witness, is  continued  to  the  end  of  the  second 
chapter,  and  cannot  well  be  accounted  for,  except 
on  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  narrative,  trans- 
lated or  used  by  the  author.     That  the  genealogy 


Positive  Triisfzvortliincss  of  the  Texts.    i8i 

given  in  the  third  chapter  was  Hkewise  trans- 
lated from  a  written  document  is  self-evident. 
Even  the  Evangelist  may  have  used  several  docu- 
ments in  his  first  two  chapters:  three  verses 
(i  *",  2*°'")  apparently  served  as  conclusions. 
If  this  is  the  case,  the  Greek  redactor  had  prob- 
ably at  his  disposal  three  originally  distinct  narra- 
tives :  the  Annunciation,  the  Nativity,  and  the 
episode  of  Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors. 

Again,  we  must  not  overrate  the  intimate  char- 
acter of  the  traditions  related  in  the  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy.  Unless  we  are  ready  to  admit  that  here 
and  there  we  have  to  deal  with  mere  literary  fan- 
cies, we  must  grant  that  the  rumor  of  those  events 
must  have  gone  beyond  the  circle  of  the  families 
which  were  concerned  in  them.  Zachary,  struck 
with  dumbness  before  the  whole  people;  John  the 
Baptist,  born  of  a  barren  mother  and  of  a  father 
who  was  advanced  in  age ;  the  cure  of  his  father ; 
his  extraordinary  life  in  the  wilderness;  the  epi- 
sode of  the  shepherds  at  Bethlehem;  the  predic- 
tion of  Simeon  and  of  the  prophetess  Anna,  who 
repeated  to  all  those  she  met  that  she  had  just 
seen  the  Messias  promised  to  Israel ;  the  scene  of 
Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Law : — 
so  many  events  which  had  been  somewhat  public, 
and  which  we  cannot  suppose  were  completely 
forgotten  a  few  years  after. 


1 82         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

True,  a  thirty  years'  period  of  obscurity  may 
have  thrown  somewhat  into  the  shade  those  who 
had  been  the  objects  of  so  many  and  so  great 
forebodings :  but  on  the  day  when  John,  and  soon 
after  Jesus,  aroused  Jerusalem  and  Judaea,  men 
must  have  remembered  the  past  events.  The  re- 
mark is  true  especially  of  the  shepherds  of  Beth- 
lehem, called  by  some  Angels  to  pay  their  duties 
to  a  child  whose  parents  they  do  not  know  and 
whose  trace  they  are  soon  to  lose.  The  relatives 
of  Jesus  probably  must  have  known  something  of 
the  wonders  that  had  accompanied  His  birth ;  but 
after  and  by  ascertaining  day  by  day  that  He  was 
just  like  other  children,  they  came  to  expect  from 
Him  nothing  extraordinary. 

"These  narratives  bear  in  themselves  tokens 
not  only  of  their  origin,  but  also  of  their  authen- 
ticity. Among  those  tokens,  we  may  mention 
first  of  all  the  fact  that  in  the  said  narratives  the 
person  and  the  work  of  the  Messias  are  set  forth 
in  their  primitive  coloring,  that  is  to  say,  in  the 
features  which  popular  imagination  ascribed  to 
the  Messianic  idea.  "The  Lord  God  will  give 
Him  the  throne  of  David  his  father;  and  he  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  of  his 
kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end."  (i  ^^-^^).  The 
same  local  color,  the  same  national  spirit,  we  find 
in  the  canticle  of  Zachary: 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    183 

"Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel, 

For  he  has  visited  and  wrought  redemption  for 
his  people, 

And  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  [i.  e.,  a  power- 
ful Deliverer]  for  us 

In  the  house  of  his  servant  David     .     .     . 

Salvation  from  the  hand  of  our  enemies,  and 
from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us     .     .     . 

Being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  our  enemies, 

We  should  serve  him  without  fear," 

/  ,    68-69,    71,    73-74  \ 

Judging  from  the  discourses  of  the  Acts  and 
from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  it  does  not  seem 
that,  after  Pentecost,  the  followers  of  Jesus,  when 
describing  the  mission  of  the  Messias,  continued 
to  use  that  language  more  or  less  encumbered  with 
temporal  and  national  elements,  an  inheritance 
from  the  pre-Christian  tradition.  On  this  account 
the  document  which  we  are  now  studying  should 
be  dated  from  the  very  beginnings  of  Christian- 
ity." * 


*  Lepin,  op.  cit.,  p.  62.  Rose  had  already  made  the 
same  remark:  "The  historical  value  of  these  first  pages 
of  the  Gospel  is  witnessed  by  the  prologue  by  which 
they  are  preceded,  and  in  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
author  shows  himself  earnest,  careful  and  critically  prudent 
in  his  investigations.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Messianic 
hope  which  inspired  Zachary  and  Mary  is  not  that  of  the 


184         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

On  what  grounds  are  we  told  that  faith  reacted 
upon  history?  Had  this  been  the  case,  the 
Evangehst  would  have  placed  on  the  lips  of  his 
personages  discourses  held  really  by  the  men  of 
his  own  generation,  and  would  have  most  prob- 
ably ascribed  to  them  the  theology  of  St.  Paul. 
Had  not  historical  exigencies  compelled  him  to 
set  forth  Jesus  in  His  birth  as  poor  and  despised, 
he  would  have  praised  and  glorified  His  cradle, 
whom  the  Apostle,  his  master,  places  at  the  sum- 
mit of  creation,  even  within  the  Divine  nature 
itself.  Prompted  by  the  suggestions  of  his  faith, 
St.  Luke  would  have  made,  not  only  the  Angels 
of  Heaven,  but  all  created  nature: — men,  brutes 
and  plants — proclaim  His  coming  into  this  world. 
These  are  the  thoughts  which  actually  inspired 
the  composition  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels. 


Had  not  St.  Luke  carefully  sifted  and  con- 
trolled the  traditions  that  came  under  his  knowl- 
edge, he  would  have  left  us  a  narrative  most 

Apostolic  Age.  The  Galilean  idyl  which  their  canticles 
reecho  took  place  but  once  in  the  historical  surroundings 
and  at  the  epoch  which  St.  Luke  describes."  Evangile  selon 
S.  Luc,  Traduct.  et  Comment.,  p.  18. 


Positive  Trustzvortliiness  of  the  Texts.    185 

different  from  that  which  we  find  in  his  Gospel : 
to  his  painstaking  fondness  of  historical  reality 
he  owes  the  sobriety  and  delicacy  of  description, 
which  are,  in  themselves,  tokens  of  truth.  Al- 
though the  myth,  strictly  so  called,  demands  more 
than  fifty  years  for  its  rise,  and  still  more,  of 
course,  for  its  being  accepted  as  history — espe- 
cially at  an  epoch  of  literary  activity,  like  the 
epoch  of  the  Evangelists — yet  we  must  grant  that 
legend,  which  is  merely  an  embellishment  of  real- 
ity, forestalls  history,  or  at  least  closely  follows 
on  its  footsteps.  This  is  a  law  of  the  psychology 
of  crowds,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
exempt  from  it  the  formation  of  narratives  con- 
cerning the  childhood  of  Jesus. 

True,  the  oldest  apocryphal  Gospels,  that  have 
come  down  to  us,  date  at  the  earliest  from  the 
end  of  the  2d  century ;  *  but  that  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  thinking  that  popular  imagination 
began  to  work  on  the  earthly  origin  of  Jesus  only 
after  two  centuries  had  elapsed :  at  an  early  date 


*  Very  few  authors  pay  any  attention  at  all  to  Conrady's 
fantastic  theory,  Die  Quelle  der  kanonischen  Kindheits- 
geschichten  Jesu,  Gottingen,  1900,  according  to  which  the 
canonical  narrative  of  Jesus'  Infancy,  in  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke,  depends  on  the  apocryphal  Gospels  and  especially 
on  the  Protevangelium  of  James. 


1 86         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

it  must  have  been  unwilling  to  grant  that  such 
an  unparalleled  wonder-worker  had  had  an  ordi- 
nary infancy.  The  Son  of  God  could  not  have 
come  unnoticed  into  this  world ;  the  God  of  nature 
must  have  there  chosen  a  dwelling,  as  a  master 
who  means  to  be  obeyed.  Starting  from  that 
principle,  any  authentic  word  or  deed  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  became  a  theme  for  those  more  or  less 
plausible  digressions,  with  which  the  apocryphal 
Gospels  are  filled.  Such  are  the  narratives  we 
would  find  in  the  third  Gospel,  had  its  author 
related  indiscriminately  all  the  stories  that  were 
circulated.  Now,  even  from  a  merely  superficial 
comparison  of  his  text  with  the  Apocyphals,  one 
can  easily  realize  the  distance  between  the  super- 
natural that  is  authentic  and  the  wonderful  that 
owes  its  origin  to  fancy.  The  prodigies  ascribed 
in  those  wild  productions  to  the  Child  Jesus  are 
most  often  improbable,  and  they  lack  almost  al- 
ways any  moral  bearing  and  religious  aim,  set- 
ting aside  the  case  when  they  proceed  from  a 
wrong  motive,  like  the  desire  for  revenge. 

We  shall  make  here  but  a  few  comparisons. 

The  narrative  of  the  Annunciation  seemed  too 
sober  to  the  author  of  the  Protevangelium  of 
James.  Whilst  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  tell  us 
merely  that  Mary  was  espoused  to  Joseph,  the 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    187 

apocryphal  is,  of  course,  far  better  informed. 
Mary,  the  daughter  of  a  wealthy  Jew,  spends  all 
her  childhood  in  the  Temple,  where  she  is  fed 
by  the  hands  of  Angels;  at  the  age  of  fourteen, 
she  refuses  to  marry,  because  she  has  made  up 
her  mind  to  remain  a  virgin;  nothing  short  of  a 
miracle  which  points  out  her  husband,  the  just 
Joseph,  is  necessary  to  make  her  take  another 
decision;  and  that  miracle  is  related  in  various 
ways :  according  to  some,  flowers  sprang  from 
the  staff  of  Joseph;  according  to  others,  a  dove 
came  from  the  staff  and  rested  on  the  head  of 
the  venerable  old  man.  The  Angel  Gabriel  salutes 
the  Virgin  first  at  the  public  spring  of  Nazareth, 
and  then  a  second  time  in  her  own  house,  where 
she  is  weaving  a  purple  veil  for  the  Temple  of 
Jerusalem.* 

When  recording  the  narrative  of  the  Nativity, 
the  tradition  of  that  apocryphal  assumes  a  grossly 
realistic  tone.  A  midwife,  named  Salome,  wishes 
to  ascertain  for  herself  that  Mary  has  brought 
forth  her  child  without  any  detriment  to  her  vir- 
ginity. Immediately  she  is  punished  for  her  in- 
credulity; her  hand  becomes  withered;  she  asks 
Mary's  forgiveness,  and  she  is  cured  through  the 


*  Protev.  Jacobi,  i-xi. 


1 88         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

contact  with  the  Child  Jesus.*  How  far  we  are 
here  from  St.  Luke's  sobriety,  who  says  in  one 
verse  all  that  he  thinks  should  be  retained  out  of 
all  the  detailed  narratives  of  the  Savior's  birth, 
that  circulated. 

Our  canonical  Gospel  tells  us  merely  that  "the 
Child  grew,  and  became  strong,  full  of  wisdom, 
and  the  grace  of  God  was  upon  him"  (2  *°)  ;  that 
"Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom  and  age,  and  in  grace 
with  God  and  men"  (2  ").  This  simple  remark 
will  seem  very  scanty  to  those  who  may  have 
read  the  apocryphal  Gospels.  In  the  latter,  we 
see  the  Son  of  Joseph  displaying  on  any  occasion 
His  divine  power ;  and  it  is  chiefly  in  these  stories, 
that  the  childishness  of  the  wonderful  deeds  that 
are  related  contrasts  with  the  wisdom  and  kind- 
ness of  the  miracles  of  the  public  life.  When  a 
child,  Jesus  makes  birds  out  of  clay ;  then,  in  order 
to  justify  Himself  for  moulding  them  on  a  Sab- 
bath-day, He  commands  them  to  fly  away,  and 
the  birds  take  their  flight  as  soon  as  He  claps 
His  hands.*  A  boy  who  has  unwillingly  hurt 
Him  falls  dead.*    Jesus'  witty  remarks  give  rise 


*  Protev.  Jacohi,  x,  xi,  and  Pseudo-Matthaus,  ix. 

*  Evangel.  Thoma,  ii,  2-5. 

*  Ibid.,  iv,  I. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    189 

to  complaints,  so  that  twice  Joseph  has  to  punish 
Him. 

A  certain  teacher,  named  Zachseus,  had  offered 
himself  to  Joseph  to  teach  his  Son;  but  Jesus, 
after  glancing  at  him,  says  to  him:  *'Thou  who 
art  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  A,  how  canst  thou 
teach  others  B?  Thou  hypocrite!  first,  if  thou 
knowest,  teach  A,  and  then  we  shall  believe  thee 
about  B."  As  the  master  remains  silent,  Jesus 
reprimands  him  and  then,  under  the  pretext  .of 
revealing  to  him  the  properties  of  A,  exposes  a 
certain  number  of  Gnostic  theories.* 

The  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  of  a  later 
date,  draws  its  inspiration  from  a  taste  for  won- 
ders, which  reminds  us  of  the  magical  tales  of  the 
Arabian  Nights.  A  youth,  who  had  been  changed 
into  a  mule,  resumes  his  first  state,  when  Mary 
places  the  Child  Jesus  on  the  back  of  the  animal,  f 
In  the  same  apocryphal,  we  read  how  one  day 
Jesus  mingles  with  the  Doctors  of  the  Law;  but 
instead  of  surprising  them  by  the  wisdom  of  His 
answers,  He  assails  them  with  questions  on  the 
Scriptures,  astronomy,  medicine,  physics,  meta- 
physics, etc.,  and  takes  a  wanton  pleasure  at  per- 
plexing them. 

*Ibid.,vi. 

"f  Evangel.  Arab.  Infantite,  xxi. 


190         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  comparison  of  the  third  Gospel  with  Jew- 
ish legends  and  Pagan  myths  serves  also  to  en- 
hance its  historical  character. 

One  of  the  recent  commentators  of  St.  Luke 
has  well  described  the  impression  left  in  the  mind 
by  the  comparison  of  those  parts  of  Christian 
belief,  which  are  first  expressed  in  the  Gospel  of 
the  Infancy,  wath  the  Graeco-Roman  mythology, 
or  even  the  wonders  of  Jewish  apocalyptic  writ- 
ings. "It  is  well  to  remember  that  there  are 
stories,  more  or  less  analogous  to  what  is  told 
by  the  two  Evangelists,  in  heathen  mythologies. 
The  historical  probability  is  not  weakened  but 
strengthened  by  such  comparisons.  St.  Luke's 
Gentile  readers  must  have  felt  the  unspeakable 
difference  between  the  coarse  impurity  of  imag- 
ined intercourse  between  mortals  and  divinities, 
in  the  religious  legends  of  paganism,  and  the  dig- 
nity and  delicacy  of  the  spiritual  narrative  which 
St.  Luke  laid  before  them.  And  St.  Matthew's 
Jewish  readers,  if  they  compared  his  story  with 
their  own  national  ideas,  as  illustrated  in  the  Book 
of  Enoch  (c,  6,  15,  69,  86,  106),  would  find  a 
similar  contrast."  * 

A  Christian  of  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church, 


*  A.  Plummer,  in  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  Vol.  I, 
PP-  74-75- 


Positive  Tnistzcorthincss  of  the  Texts.    191 

recently  converted  from  Paganism,  would  have 
wondered  in  the  extreme,  had  he  been  told  that 
his  belief  in  Christ's  Virgin-Birth  did  not  really 
differ  from  the  legend  according  to  which  Plato 
was  born  of  Perictione  and  Apollo;  so  sure  he 
was  that,  comparing  the  two  cases,  everything — 
witnesses,  testimony  and  the  public  at  large — was 
altogether  dissimilar.  From  this  point  of  view, 
the  history  of  Diogenes  Laertius,  written  more 
than  two  centuries  after  the  events,  cannot  be 
compared  at  all  with  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.* 

How  conceive  and  bear  the  idea  that,  in  order 
to  express  their  thoughts  on  a  preeminently  chaste 
mystery.  Christians  should  have  had  recourse  to 
the  formulas  of  the  most  repugnant  and  shameful 
lewdness : — that  of  the  Olympian  gods  ?  All  pos- 
sible subtleties  shall  not  be  able  to  fill  up  the  chasm 
between  the  Gospels  and  the  Greek  poetry.  In  the 
churches,  where  that  compromise  between  light 
and  darkness  is  supposed  to  have  taken  place  quite 
early,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  read  every 
Sunday.      Now,   in  these   Epistles,   the   Apostle 


*  That  the  legend  about  Plato's  divine  origin  was  already 
current  during  the  lifetime  of  Speusippus,  his  nephew  and 
eulogist,  has  not  been  proved.  True,  Diogenes  Laertius, 
iii,  I,  affirms  it,  but  all  know  what  to  think  of  his  ac- 
curacy. 


192         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

praises  the  faithful  for  having  completely  cast 
aside  the  superstitions  and  shameful  wanderings 
of  a  merely  human  science.* 

Again,  most  of  the  comparisons  that  have  been 
attempted  so  as  to  show  the  literary  dependence 
of  the  narratives  of  Jesus'  Infancy  upon  some 
profane  texts,  cannot  bear  a  careful  examination. 
The  following  instance  may  be  added  to  those 
already  given.  There  is  a  story  to  the  effect  that 
the  mother  of  Augustus,  when  asleep  in  Apollo's 
temple,  was  visited  by  the  god,  in  the  shape  of  a 
serpent.  From  this  Soltau  infers  a  Greek  influ- 
ence upon  the  narrative  of  the  Annunciation  in 
St.  Luke.f  With  a  method  like  this,  it  would  be 
easy  to  derive  from  one  source  all  similar  narra- 
tives, which,  after  all,  are  quite  numerous. J     We 


*  Ephes.,  S- 

t  Op.  cit.,  p.  49. 

XCi.  above,  pp.  77  and  ff.  The  objection  is  not  new; 
all  these  comparisons  had  been  already  dealt  with  by 
St.  Jerome,  Adv.  Jovin.,  i,  42;  Migne,  P.  L.,  xxiii,  273.  For 
the  comparisons  made  between  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy 
and  the  narrative  concerning  the  birth  of  Buddha,  the 
reader  may  be  referred  to  a  recent  article  by  a  learned 
professor,  a  specialist  on  this  question,  Louis  de  La  Vallee- 
PoussiN,  Le  Bouddhisme  et  les  Evangiles  Canoniques,  in 
the  Revue  Bihlique,  1906,  p.  353-  The  author  shows  the 
weakness  and  arbitrary  character  of  the  thesis  that  affirms 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    193 

must  ask  ourselves  whether  or  not  we  have  to  take 
as  serious  the  view  of  those  critics  who  think 
they  have  contributed  something  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem  regarding  the  origin  of  Jesus,  be- 
cause they  have  most  solemnly  recalled  that  one 
of  the  titles  given  to  Augustus  was  that  of  Son  of 
God  and  Savior  of  the  World.  Truly,  we  are 
tempted  to  fancy  that  hypercriticism  is  destructive 
of  the  sense  of  fitness  and  of  measure! 

Far  from  appealing  to  a  Jew,  the  dogma  of  the 
Virgin-Birth  raised  objections  in  his  mind,  as 
may  be  seen  from  the  lengthy  and  detailed  dis- 
pute on  this  subject  between  Trypho  and  St. 
Justin.  This  is  a  point  which  will  be  treated 
later  on,  in  connection  with  St.  Matthew's  narra- 
tive. That  circumstance  is  actually  one  of  the 
chief  reasons  that  have  been  advanced  to  prove 
that  the  idea  of  Jesus'   supernatural  conception 

that  the  Evangelical  narrative  was  borrowed  from  the 
Buddhistic  story,  as  was  recently  maintained,  especially  by 
Albert  J.  Edmunds,  Buddhist  and  Christian  Gospels,  1904; 
moreover,  one  of  his  friends,  he  tells  us,  is  soon  to  pub- 
lish a  more  complete  study  of  the  question,  both  from  the 
Biblical  and  from  the  Buddhistic  point  of  view.  As  to  the 
so-called  virgin-birth  of  Moses,  all  know  that  this  is  but 
a  rabbinical  legend,  much  later  than  the  New  Testament 
writings.  In  The  Interpreter,  July  1908,  p.  398,  CI.  F. 
Rogers  gives  a  complete  list  of  all  the  explanations  that 
have  been  advanced. 


194         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

was  of  Hellenic  origin.*  For  converts  from 
Paganism,  Jesus,  Son  of  God,  could  have  no 
father  upon  earth ;  consequently  they  came  to  look 
upon  Him  as  conceived  by  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  this,  we  are  told,  is  precisely  what 
St.  Luke  himself  means  to  say,  when  he  places 
on  the  lips  of  the  Angel  Gabriel  words  like  this : 
"Therefore  the  holy  child  that  is  to  be  born  of 
thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."  f 

True,  the  text  connects  Jesus'  supernatural  con- 
ception with  His  divine  Sonship ;  %  but  it  is  just 
as  true  and  evident  that  that  relation  is  the  reverse 
of  the  relation  which  the  objection  implies.  Ac- 
cording to  St.  Luke,  Jesus  is  born  of  a  virgin, 
not  because  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  but  He  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God  because  He  is  born  of 
a  virgin.  Besides,  we  must  not  understand  the 
consequence  marked  by  the  particle  dib  xal,  as 
though  Christ's  divine  Sonship  depended,  for  its 
existence  itself,  on  the  Virgin-Birth.     He  whom 


*  Herzog,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  120-123. 

i  Ibid.,  pp.  120,  121,  127. 

t  However,  Blass,  Granimatik  dcs  neut.  Griechisch,  n. 
78,  5,  observes  that  the  subordination  expressed  by  the 
particle  Si6  koX  is  not  always  strict,  and  he  refers  the 
reader  precisely  to  Luke  i  ^^ :  Aib  khX  to  ysvvu>it.ivov  ayiov  kAtjAijo-- 

eroi  vtbs  Qeov, 


Positive  Tnistzvortliiness  of  the  Texts.    195 

Mary  is  to  conceive  and  bring  forth  is  called 
"Son  of  God"  even  in  verse  32,  before  any  men- 
tion of  supernatural  conception  has  been  made. 

Some  may  say  that  verse  35  is  an  interpolation 
introduced  into  the  primitive  document  of  the 
Annunciation.  We  have  already  shown  that  this 
hypothesis  cannot  be  held,  even  on  merely  textual 
considerations.*  We  might  add  that  St.  Mat- 
thew's text  states  expressly  that  Jesus  was  born 
of  a  Virgin,  and  makes  not  even  the  faintest 
allusion  to  His  divine  Sonship.  Now,  most  critics 
rightly  look  upon  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  in 
St.  Matthew  as  representing  a  primitive  tradition, 
still  earlier  than  that  of  St.  Luke.  We  are  told 
even  that  on  that  former  tradition  the  third  Evan- 
gelist depends,  in  what  refers  to  the  belief  in  the 
Virgin-Mother.  Hence  it  may  be  inferred  that 
that  belief  is  independent  of  the  connection  made 
here  by  St.  Luke. 

The  words  of  Gabriel  have  for  their  chief  pur- 
pose to  give  an  explanation  to  Mary  who  fears 
for  her  virginity :  Let  the  Virgin  not  be  disturbed, 
the  Son  of  the  Most  High  does  not  enter  into  this 
world  like  other  men.  Nay,  that  privilege,  by 
which  from  His  very  birth  He  is  set  apart,  shall 
serve,  at  the  proper  time,  to  declare  the  origin 
of  Christ,  Son  of  God. 

*  Cf.  above,  pp.  86-89,  122-133. 


196         TJic  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

When  the  Christian  apologists  of  the  2d  cen- 
tury insist  on  the  similarities  between  Christian 
mysteries  and  the  myths  of  Heathenism,  it  is  evi- 
dently for  them  a  mere  argument  ad  hominem: 
Why  should  the  Greeks  ridicule  and  condemn 
those  points  of  our  doctrine,  which  they  praise 
and  approve  in  their  own  doctrine?  In  their  at- 
tempt to  account  for  those  analogies,  some  have 
had  recourse  to  the  influence  of  Satan  the  inspirer 
of  heathen  poets,  who  did  his  utmost  to  ape  the 
works  of  God,  so  as  more  effectively  to  deceive 
and  lead  men  astray.  This  is  but  a  particular 
application  of  the  view  then  quite  current  in  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  circles,  viz.:  that  Greek  wisdom 
was  to  be  subservient  to  the  Law  and  to  the 
Prophets.  Fortunately,  the  historical  authority 
of  our  sacred  Writings  is  not  bound  up  with  the 
failure  of  that  very  simple  attempt  to  account  for 
a  feature  often  common  to  truth  and  falsehood : — 
plausibility.  The  Ancients  readily  looked  upon 
myth  and  legend  as  a  mere  degradation  of  his- 
tory; but  this  view  is  itself  a  proof  of  the  distinc- 
tion they  made  between  the  various  manifestations 
of  reality.* 

*  The  question  of  the  so-called  influence  of  heathen 
mythology  on  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  has  been  studied, 
quite  at  length,  by  G.  H.  Box,  The  Gospel  Narratives  of 
the  Nativity  and  the  alleged  Influences  of  heathen  Ideas, 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutestam.  Wissenschaft,  1905,  pp. 
80-101. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    197 


Although  the  authority  of  St.  Luke's  witness 
extends  to  the  contents  of  his  Gospel,  taken  as 
a  whole,  yet  all  readers,  even  orthodox  readers, 
are  perfectly  entitled  to  ask  here  for  more  par- 
ticular justifications  bearing  precisely  on  the 
meaning  and  import  the  Evangelist  meant  to  give 
to  his  text. 

The  first  question  refers  to  those  Canticles 
found  in  St.  Luke :  the  Magnificat,  the  Benedictus, 
the  Nunc  dimittis,  with  which  the  greeting  ad- 
dressed by  Elizabeth  to  Mary  may  be  joined. 

The  same  spirit  seems  to  breathe  through  these 
pieces;  at  all  events,  their  literary  make-up  un- 
questionably implies  some  common  origin.  In 
their  sentiments  and  in  their  language,  they  recall 
the  Canticles  of  the  Old  Testament.  Synoptical 
tables  have  been  drawn  up  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  in  a  parallel  way  and  verse  by  verse  the 
Gospel  text  and  its  sources;  the  Magnificat  espe- 
cially has  been  compared  to  the  Canticle  of  Anna, 
Samuel's  mother.* 

Should  we  infer  that  these  Canticles  are  the 
exclusive  work  of  the  Evangelist  or  of  an  earlier 


*  Cf.  above,  p.  19,  note. 


198         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

writer  whose  compositions  he  used, — and  that 
they  have  no  greater  historical  value  than  the 
speeches  ascribed  by  ancient  historians  to  their 
heroes  ?  Did  we  go  even  to  that  length  and  grant 
that  St.  Luke  interpreted  and  expressed  the  senti- 
ments of  the  persons  he  presents  to  his  readers, 
we  would  not  "ipso  facto"  deny  any  historical 
value  to  his  narrative :  Livy  and  Polybius  still 
deserve  to  be  reckoned  among  historians,  even 
though  they  took  that  liberty.  From  the  mere 
point  of  view  of  possibility,  inspiration  itself  is 
not  incompatible  with  that  literary  process,  pro- 
vided it  is  discovered  by  textual  analysis.  When 
relating  a  long  and  continued  dialogue  between 
Joshua  and  the  whole  people  of  Israel,  the  sacred 
writer  construes  the  real  sentiments  of  those  who 
were  there  present,  although  he  does  not  claim 
to  attach  a  strict  historical  meaning  to  the  words 
with  which  the  discourse  is  actually  introduced: 
"Responditque  populus  et  ait:  .  .  ."  *  How- 
ever, we  are  not  at  all  obliged  to  have  recourse 
here  to  that  extreme  and  radical  explanation. 

It  may  be  held  that  the  Canticles  of  the  third 
Gospel  were  actually  uttered,  at  least  in  their  sub- 
stance, by  those  to  whom  they  are  ascribed  by 

♦JosuE,  24 1^ 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    199 

the  Evangelist.  And  why  not?  We  must  not  be 
surprised  at  the  stereotyped  form  which  gives 
them  a  tone  of  artificial  compositions.  The  Jews 
were  then  wont  to  borrow  from  Holy  Writ  the 
formula  of  their  prayers,  and  of  their  constant 
fidelity  to  this  tradition,  even  their  modern 
euchologions  contain  many  a  proof.  The  practice 
was  the  easier  that  at  an  early  age  they  used  to 
become  familiar  with  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
the  Bible  being  their  whole  and  only  national 
literature.  Nay,  Jesus  Himself  followed  in  this 
regard  the  traditions  of  His  country.  Not  only 
does  He,  in  the  wilderness,  drive  away  Satan's 
suggestions  by  means  of  a  Biblical  quotation,  and, 
on  the  Cross,  borrow  from  the  Psalmist  His  last 
words,  but  the  Our  Father  itself,  which  was  to 
remain  His  Prayer,  is  His  own  far  more  by  the 
new  spirit  with  which  it  is  filled,  than  by  the  nov- 
elty of  the  words,  taken  in  their  material  reality. 
Again,  it  is  a  law  of  human  psychology  that,  at 
the  solemn  moments  of  life,  when  great  emotions 
have  to  be  expressed,  all  men  spontaneously  recur 
to  the  most  sacred  formulas  they  may  know. 
Classical  antiquity  always  thought  that  the  natu- 
ral and  fit  language  of  prophetic  utterances  was 
poetry,  and  even  versified  poetry.* 

♦This  has  been  remarked  by  Father  Didon:  "Poetry  is 
the  language  of  strong  impressions  and  lofty  ideas ;  among 


200         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  strophic  construction 
of  the  Canticles  in  St.  Luke  comes,  in  its  present 
state,  from  those  who  uttered  them?  Not  neces- 
sarily so.  The  author  who  wrote  them  down, 
whoever  he  was,  may  have  given  to  those  pieces 
their  actual  regular  and  rhythmic  form,  perhaps 
in  order  to  make  them  hymns  suited  to  the  use 
of  Christian  liturgy.  Some  have  inferred  from 
that  artificial  construction  that  the  Canticles  in 
question  are  mere  formulas  of  prayers,  already 
current  among  the  Jews,  and  used  by  St.  Luke's 
personages  as  an  expression  of  their  own  senti- 
ments: just  as  we  do,  for  instance,  when  we  say 
the  Miserere  or  the  Te  Deiim.  Considered  in 
itself,  this  hypothesis  is  somewhat  plausible;  but 
two  apparently  unanswerable  difficulties  may  be 
raised  against  it. 

the  Jews,  as  among  all  Eastern  nations,  it  was  full  of 
inspiration:  every  soul  is  poetic,  and  sings  in  joy  or  sorrow. 
If  ever  a  full  heart  gave  vent  to  an  inspired  hymn,  it  was 
the  heart  of  the  maiden  elected  by  God  to  be  the  mother 
of  the  Messiah.  She  borrowed,  from  the  histories  in  the 
Bible,  of  those  women  who  before  her  had  felt  the  awe 
of  motherhood,  as  Leah  and  the  mother  of  Samuel,  ex- 
pressions which  she  enlarged  and  transfigured.  The 
national  hymns  which  had  celebrated  the  glory  of  her  peo- 
ple, the  mercy,  power,  wisdom  and  faithfulness  of  God, 
rose  naturally  to  lips  accustomed  to  song."  (English 
translation),  Vol.  I,  pp.  38-39. 


Positive  Tnistzvortliiiicss  of  the  Texts.    201 

The  first  difficulty  is  the  perfect  agreement  of 
those  Canticles  with  the  circumstances  of  persons 
and  times,  which  introduce  them  in  the  Gospel. 
A     current     formula     always     corresponds     but 
vaguely  to  the  soul-attitude  and  inner  dispositions 
of  him  who  makes  use  of  it;  here,  on  the  con- 
trary,   the   agreement   is   as   perfect   as   can   be 
imagined.    This  is  evident  as  regards  the  greeting 
of  Elizabeth:  of  the  four  distichs  of  which  it  is 
made  up,  there  is  not  one  that  does  not  apply  to 
the  Mother  of  the  Messias,  and  to  her  alone : 
"Blessed  art  thou  among  women, 
And  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb. 
And  whence  is  this  to  me, 
That  the  mother  of  my  Lord  should  come  to  me?" 

On  the  other  hand,  of  herself  and  of  herself 
alone  Elizabeth  intends  to  speak,  when  she 
adds :  "For  lo,  when  the  voice  of  thy  salutation 
sounded  in  my  ears,  the  babe  leaped  in  my  womb 
for  joy." 

What  woman,  besides  Mary,  could  have 
thanked  God  for  having  favored  her  so  much  and 
so  highly,  that  she  sees  already  all  nations  pro- 
claiming her  blessed?  Some  one  may  say  that, 
in  the  primitive  text  of  the  Magnificat,  the  hero 
was  Israel.  But  then  why  do  we  read  in  St. 
Luke  that  God   "looked  upon  the  lowliness  of 


202         Tlic  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

His  handmaid"  ?  It  must  be  granted  at  least  that 
this  is  an  adaptation.  To  whom  should  we 
ascribe  it  ?  To  the  Evangelist,  some  answer. 
Why  not  to  Mary  herself?  * 

The  stamp  of  concrete  and  particular  circum- 
stances is  less  distinct  and  visible  in  the  Bene- 
dictus:  but  here  again  it  must  be  confessed  that 
several  verses  can  be  understood  only  of  the  son 
of  Zachary :  for  instance :  "And  thou,  child,  shalt 
be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Most  High ;  for  thou 
shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare 
his  ways."  As  to  the  Ntmc  dimittis,  it  is  suited 
only  to  the  lips  of  the  venerable  old  man,  who  has 
just  met  the  Messias,  for  whom  he  was  longing. 
His  song  is  the  utterance  of  the  last  prophet: 
now  that  he  has  seen  the  dawn  of  the  Messianic 
era,  the  last  watchman  in  Israel  wishes  to  be 
relieved  from  his  duty. 


*  This  present  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  dis- 
pute that  has  been  going  on  for  more  than  ten  years,  about 
the  attribution  of  the  Magnificat  to  Elizabeth,  in  some 
MSS.  Whether  the  canticle  comes  from  Mary  or  from 
Elizabeth,  is  a  point  of  textual  criticism  the  solution  of 
which  leaves  the  subsequent  question  intact :  does  the 
Magnificat  correspond  to  an  historical  reality  or  must  it  be 
looked  upon  as  a  composition  of  the  Evangelist?  Cf. 
above,  p.  42. 


Positive  Trustzvorthincss  of  the  Texts.    203 

Again,  the  hypothesis  of  the  transformation  of 
Jewish  hymns  into  Christian  songs  is  open  to 
another  difficulty,  which  is  always  most  serious 
from  an  historical  point  of  view :  that  hypothesis 
is  merely  gfratuitous.  In  the  whole  Hebrew  lit- 
erature,  whether  canonical  or  not,  there  is  nothing 
whatever  like  these  Canticles.  Really  they  are 
found  in  St.  Luke  alone. 

Some  critics  suggest  that  the  Evangelist  bor- 
rowed those  pieces  from  Christian  liturgy.  This 
view  is  just  as  gratuitous  as  the  preceding,  and 
besides  far  more  improbable.  We  can  hardly 
fancy  an  author  openly  claiming  to  relate  the 
beginnings  of  Christianity  more  accurately  than 
his  predecessors,  and  then,  from  the  very  start, 
taking  such  liberties  with  history.  We  might  just 
as  well  look  upon  as  earnest  and  believe  an  his- 
torian of  the  French  Revolution  who  would  put 
the  Marseillaise  on  the  lips  of  J.  J.  Rousseau. 
The  hypothesis  in  question  becomes  less  improb- 
able, if  we  suppose  that,  in  the  liturgy  which  was 
used  as  a  source  by  the  Evangelist  these  Canti- 
cles were  said  by  the  same  persons  as  in  the 
Gospel.  But  the  question  comes  again :  To  whom 
should  their  composition  be  ascribed  ?  * 

*  About  the  essentially  Hebrew  and  pre-Christian  charac- 
ter of  St.   Luke's  canticles,  the  reader  may  consult  with 


204         The  CJiildJiood  of  Jesus  Christ. 


For  a  long  time  past  St.  Luke  has  been  accused 
of  being  mistaken,  when  he  claims  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  went  to  Bethlehem  where  Jesus  was 
born,  in  order  to  comply  with  an  edict  of  the 
Emperor  Augustus,  who  had  prescribed  a  uni- 
versal census  of  the  Roman  world.  The  Evan- 
gelist adds  that  this  census  took  place  in  Pales- 
tine, when  Cyrinus  was  the  governor  of  Syria. 

This  statement,  we  are  told,  is  false  for  two 
reasons.  First  of  all,  there  was  no  census  in 
Palestine  the  year  Jesus  was  born.  Anyhow, 
Cyrinus  was  not  at  that  time  the  legate  of  Syria. 
Then,  even  granting  that  there  was  a  census  in 
that  year,  Joseph  was  not  obliged  on  that  account 
to  go  to  Bethlehem,  the  cradle  of  his  family,  since 
censuses  were  not  taken  by  families.* 

profit  Ryle  and  James,  Psalms  of  Solomon,  especially  pp. 
xci,  xcii;  about  their  connection  with  the  eighteen  prayers 
of  the  Synagogue :  Chase,  The  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  Early 
Church,  in  the  collection  Texts  and  Studies,  i,  3,  p.  147; 
concerning  the  Benedictus:  W.  Sanday,  Critical  Questions, 
p.  131,  and  Nebe,  Die  Kindheitsgeschichte  unseres  Herrn 
Jesu  Christi,  p.  166. 

*  These  objections  are  still  urged,  on  the  whole,  by 
Pfleiderer  and  Schmiedel,  and  chiefly  by  E.  Schurer, 
Geschichte  des  jUdischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  J.  C,  1,  pp. 
501-543.     (English  translation  of  the  previous  edition,  ist 


Positive  Triistworfhiness  of  the  Texts.    205 

To  that  difficulty  we  might  reply  first  that  an 
actual  mistake  of  that  kind  would  not  do  away 
altogether  with  St.  Luke's  authority,  nor  espe- 
cially with  the  historical  character  of  his  work. 
What  historian  could  stand  the  test,  if  to  be 
deemed  trustworthy,  his  work  must  contain  no 
error,  not  even  in  the  details? 

But  here  again  there  is  no  need  to  have  re- 
course to  such  an  extreme  solution :  St.  Luke's 
accuracy  can  be  upheld.  Apologists  have  carefully 
studied  and  treated  the  question  of  Cyrinus.  The 
reader  will  find  in  what  follows  not  indeed  all 
their  explanations,  but  merely  the  certain  or  at 
least  the  most  probable  conclusions  that  now  can 
be  drawn  from  these  explanations.* 

(a)  It  is  certain  that  the  Emperor  Augustus 
had  contemplated  taking  up  and  actually  did  take 
up  a  whole  system  of  censuses,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  the  drawing  up  of  all  the  forces  and 
resources  of  the  Roman  World. 

(b)  It  seems  equally  certain  that  some  period- 
ical census  by  families  took  place  in  Egypt  about 

division,  Vol.  II,  pp.  108-143).     St.  Luke's  accuracy  is  up- 
held by  Ramsay,  Zockler,  Chase,  Knowling,  Kenyon,  etc. 

♦For  the  quotations  of  the  texts  and  the  reference  to 
authorities,  cf.  especially  W.  Ramsay's  excellent  work: 
Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?  1898. 


2o6         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

that  time,  in  keeping  with  the  imperial  edict. 
From  an  inscription  found  at  Lyons  we  learn  that 
this  was  also  the  case  in  Gaul.  But,  then,  why 
not  in  Palestine  ?  There,  as  in  all  other  tributary 
kingdoms,  people  paid  to  the  Roman  treasury  a 
personal  tax,  which  was  really  a  poll-tax ;  *  and 
it  goes  without  saying  that  its  perception  required 
an  assessment  based  on  a  census  other  than  that 
according  to  which  the  land-tax  was  levied.  The 
census  by  families  is  accounted  for  in  Palestine 
the  more  easily  that  it  was  in  keeping  with  Jewish 
customs.  The  census  which  took  place  in  a.  d.  6 
gave  rise  to  a  popular  revolt  led  by  Judas  of 
Gamala,  precisely  because  on  that  occasion  the 
officials  of  the  census  attempted  to  take  it  accord- 
ing to  the  Roman  method,  which  consisted  merely 
in  recording  on  the  spot  the  civil  status  of  each 
individual.  This  is  at  least  the  view  of  scholars 
worthy  of  consideration.! 


*  This  tribute  is  referred  to  in  Matt.  22 1'^. 

'\  Acts  5  2^,   iv   TaZs    iitiipaii   t^s  inoy pa<f>rii.        This  CCnSUS  tOOk 

place  the  same  year  that  the  Ethnarch  Herod  Arche- 
laus  was  deposed  and  that  Judaea  began  to  be  ruled  by  a 
Roman  procurator.  St.  Luke  knows  of  that  census,  since 
he  mentions  it  in  the  Acts,  and  he  distinguishes  it  so  clearly 
from  that  which,  some  ten  years  before,  had  brought  Joseph 
and  Mary  to  Bethlehem,  that  he  prevents  any  mistake  by 
saying  expressly  in  the  Gospel  that  he  speaks  of  the  first 


Positive  Triistzvorthiness  of  the  Texts.    207 

- 

A  measure  resorted  to  by  Tiberius  in  the  subse- 
quent census — a.  d.  20 —  seems  to  have  been 
taken  as  a  consequence  of  the  unfortunate  results 
of  that  attempt  at  romanization.  The  Emperor 
commanded  that  the  census  should  be  taken  in 
the  Roman  way,  only  in  the  provinces  strictly 
so-called ;  whilst  in  the  countries  that  were  merely 
tributary,  current  customs  should  be  followed. 
It  may  rightly  be  surmised  that  thirty  years 
earlier,  when  the  Roman  power  in  Palestine  was 
far  less  sure  of  itself,  the  imperial  officials  did 
not  even  think  of  another  course  of  action.  And 
then,  must  not  the  feelings  of  King  Herod  be 
spared  ? 

census,  i)  airoypa<pr)  ■n-purrj.  The  census,  understood  and  ap- 
plied in  the  Jewish  way,  was  not  only  by  families,  but  even 
by  tribes.  We  should  not  exaggerate  the  exacting  character 
of  the  measure.  The  Jews,  who  had  been  commanded  by 
the  Mosaic  law  to  go  three  times  a  year  to  Jerusalem,  could 
not  find  it  too  hard  to  be  called  upon,  from  time  to  time,  to 
appear  in  the  birthplace  of  their  forefathers.  Besides,  only 
they  who  were  living  in  Palestine  were  obliged  to  leave  their 
abode  momentarily,  and,  as  is  well  known,  three  or  four 
days  sufficed  to  take  them  from  one  end  of  the  country  to 
the  other.  From  a  statement  of  St.  Luke,  we  gather  that 
David's  descendants  had  not  been  slow  to  comply  with  the 
imperial  decree :  the  inns  of  Bethlehem  were  filled  with 
people  when  Joseph  and  Mary  got  there.  Probably  they 
had  made  their  journey  coincide  with  the  solemn  feast  of 
the   Dedication,   which  always   brought  many  visitors   to 


2o8         The  Childhood  of  Jestis  Christ. 

(c)  If  the  regular  order  of  censuses  was  fol- 
lowed, the  census  which  preceded  that  of  the  year 
6  A.  D.^  must  have  occurred  fourteen  years  before, 

Jerusalem.  In  case  some  one  would  wonder  that  a  poor 
mechanic  like  Joseph  was  able  to  justify  his  claims  of 
Davidic  descent,  he  may  recall  that,  a  century  later,  under 
Domitian  (81-96),  the  two  grandsons  of  St.  Jude,  who 
were  introduced  to  the  Emperor  as  descendants  of  David, 
were  husbandmen  (Euseb.,  H.  E.,  Ill,  xx). — Again,  Joseph 
may  have  had,  besides  his  genealogy,  a  more  urgent  reason 
for  being  inscribed  at  Bethlehem,  although  residing  at  Naza- 
reth. Since  his  recent  marriage  with  Mary,  he  may  have 
had  his  legal  domicile  at  Bethlehem.  Had  this  little  town 
been  for  him  only  the  cradle  of  his  ancestors,  we  could 
hardly  understand  why  his  first  thought  was  to  go  back 
there,  when  the  Angel  told  him  in  Egypt  that  he  could 
bring  back  to  Palestine  the  Child  and  Its  mother.  Nothing 
less  than  the  fear  of  Archelaus  and  a  new  warning  from 
Heaven  made  Him  give  up  his  intention.  Why  did  Mary 
accompany  Joseph?  Women  paid  the  poll-tax,  but  it  does 
not  seem  that  they  were  obliged  personally  to  be  inscribed. 
In  a  census  by  families,  the  husband  made  a  declaration  of 
his  wife  and  children.  Hence  it  is  unnecessary  to  have 
recourse  to  the  explanation  which  has  passed,  in  the  shape 
of  a  gloss,  into  the  text  of  the  Syriac  version,  called 
Sinaitic:  "Because  both  of  them  were  of  the  house  of 
David."  The  text  of  St.  Luke,  ivepr)  Se  koI  'luajj"^ 
.  .  .  ivoypa\pa<T6ai.  <ri)v  Mapii/it,  strictly  Speaking,  can  be  trans- 
lated: "And  Joseph  also  went  up  with  Mary  to  be  in- 
scribed." The  important  fact  here  is  Mary's  journey  to 
Bethlehem  with  Joseph;  the  census  was  mentioned  in  the 
narrative,  merely  because  it  was  the  occasion  of  that 
journey. 


Positive  Trustzvorthincss  of  the  Texts.    209 

i.  e.,  in  the  year  8  b.  c*  This  last  date  does  not 
agree  with  St.  Luke's  statement,  since  the  birth 
of  Jesus  cannot  be  placed  earlier  than  6  b.  c. 
True,  but  are  we  forbidden  to  suppose  that  the 
operations  of  the  census  demanded  at  least  two 
years?  The  census  by  families  required  neces- 
sarily a  great  deal  of  time,  owing  to  the  journeys 
it  imposed.  Besides,  we  know  that  at  that  time 
the  relations  between  Augustus  and  Herod  were 
rather  strained.  Moreover,  the  slow  process  of 
the  census  perhaps  accounts  for  the  mention  of 
Cyrinus  made  by  St.  Luke. 

In  the  year  6  b.  c,  the  province  of  Syria  was 
not  governed  by  Cyrinus,  but  by  Sentius  Satur- 
ninus,  or  by  Quinctilius  Varus,  who  replaced  him 
that  same  year.  The  latter  held  his  office  until 
the  year  4  b.  c,  the  latest  date  that  can  be  ascribed 
to  the  birth  of  Jesus,  since  it  took  place  before 
the  death  of  Herod,  which  occurred  toward  the 
spring  of  the  year  750  u.  c.  To  help  along  the 
slothful  Varus,  especially  in  the  taking  of  the 
census,  the  Emperor  may  have  associated  with 
him  Cyrinus,  of  whom  Tacitus  writes  he  was 
"impiger  militice  et  acribus  ministeriis."    Had  not 


*  That  there  were  periodical  censuses,  every  fourteen 
years,  rests  on  positive  proof  from  documents,  at  least  as 
regards  Egypt. 


2IO         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Augustus  done  likewise  when  with  the  preceding 
legate,  Saturninus,  he  had  associated  Volumnius? 
We  may  remark,  too,  that  St.  Luke  calls  Cyrinus 
neither  a  legate  nor  a  proconsul ;  to  designate  his 
function  the  Evangelist  uses  a  rather  indefinite 
term  of  which  he  seems  to  be  fond  when  speaking 
of  the  government  of  Palestine.* 

This  is  no  mere  hypothesis.  Most  scholars 
grant  that  Cyrinus  exercised  twice  a  public  func- 
tion in  Syria.  Now,  it  is  certain  that  in  the  year 
6  A.  D.  Cyrinus  was  sent  as  legate  to  the  im- 
perial province  of  Syria.  When  was  he  sent  for 
the  first  time?  To  this  question  the  text  of  St. 
Luke  gives  a  satisfactory  reply,  for  it  enables  us 
to  affirm  that  between  the  year  8  b.  c.  and  the 
year  4  b.  c.  Cyrinus  had  a  share  in  the  govern- 
ment of  Syria.     Nay,  it  is  most  probable  that  in 


* 'Hyejutovtu'oi'Tos    t^s    Supias    Kvpijvi'ov,    ii,    2',    cf.    iii,    1 ',    XX,    20  J 

xxi,  12.  St.  Justin  says  that  Cyrinus  was  epitropus 
(procurator)  at  the  time  of  the  census  (/  ApoL,  34). 
Likewise  Josephus  (Antig.,  XVI,  ix,  i)  gives  to  Volumnius 
the  title  of  Koiaapos  riyiij.u,v,  the  official  title  of  those  who, 
like  Pontius  Pilate,  for  instance,  governed  Palestine  by 
imperial  delegation.  The  hypothesis  according  to  which 
Cyrinus  was  associated  with  the  legate  of  Syria  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  that  province  accounts  fully  for  a  passage  of 
Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc,  iv,  19,  where  he  says  that  Jesus 
was  born  under  the  rule  of  Sentius  Saturninus,  although 
he  knew  the  text  of  St.  Luke  and  received  its  authority. 


Positive  Trustivorthiness  of  the  Texts.    211 

the  year  3  b.  c,  perhaps  even  before  the  end  of 
the  year  4  b.  c,  he  succeeded  Varus,  with  the 
title  of  legate.  Between  Varus,  who  gave  up  his 
office  shortly  after  Herod's  death,  and  C.  Caesar, 
the  grandson  of  Augustus,  who  obtained  in  the 
year  i  b.  c.  the  legation  of  Syria  and  held  it  until 
the  year  4  a.  d.,  there  is,  in  the  series  of  legates, 
a  period  of  three  years,  covered  by  the  adminis- 
tration of  an  officer  whose  name  has  not  reached 
us.  Better  than  anybody  else,  Cyrinus  seems  to 
be  the  man  fit  to  fill  that  gap.  If  this  is  the  case, 
then  we  understand  why  the  Evangelist  says  ex- 
pressly that  he  intends  to  speak  of  the  first  census, 
whether  the  census  which  took  place  toward  the 
end  of  Herod's  reign  was  the  first  attempted  by 
the  Romans  in  Palestine,  or  rather  the  first  taken 
by  Cyrinus,  who  was  also  to  preside  over  the 
census  taken  in  the  year  6  a.  d. 


The  episode  of  Jesus  in  the  Temple  is  a  puzzle 
for  those  who  as  yet  have  failed  to  understand 
how  a  child  twelve  years  old  could  have  been 
conscious  of  His  Messianic  destiny.  Is  not  their 
amazement  due,  after  all,  to  naturalistic  preju- 
dices, or  at  least  to  a  kind  of  spontaneous  and 


212         TJic  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

instinctive  mistrust  they  feel  regarding  any  text 
that  records  supernatural  manifestations? 

Even  though  they  profess  that  Jesus  was  not 
a  man  like  other  men,  some  Christian  critics 
reluctantly  admit  that  at  times  and  in  some  places 
He  did  not  act  as  other  men.  On  the  contrary, 
to  the  Evangelist  who  wrote  it,  also  to  all  his 
readers, — who  were  exempt  from  that  morbid 
fear  of  the  supernatural  to  which  hypercriticism 
gives  rise, — both  to  him  and  to  them  the  episode 
of  that  narrative  seems  a  most  normal  occurrence. 
For  is  it  not  fitting  that  the  Messias — especially 
if  it  is  granted  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God — 
should  with  full  consciousness  approach  gradu- 
ally the  work  He  came  to  do  in  our  midst  ?  At  all 
events,  the  tradition  of  the  Child  Jesus  amongst 
the  Doctors  of  the  Law  rests  on  solid  historical 
testimony,  and  this  is  quite  enough  to  hinder 
sound  critics  from  consigning  that  tradition  to 
the  realm  of  legend. 

The  same  should  be  said  of  the  Angels'  appari- 
tion to  the  shepherds  of  Bethlehem,  on  the  night 
of  the  Nativity.  Is  it  not  natural  that,  when  the 
Son  of  God  entered  into  this  world  to  save  all 
men,  the  Heavens  should  have  made  His  presence 
known  to  a  few  pure,  simple  souls?  Mankind 
could  have  devised  nothing  better  to  welcome  its 
Redeemer.    In  the  eyes  of  some,  that  tradition  is 


Positive  Trustivorthiness  of  the  Texts.    213 

a  mere  equivalent  of  that  other  tradition,  recorded 
in  St.  Matthew,  according  to  which  the  Magi 
came  from  the  East  to  adore  the  King  of  the 
Jews.  This  question  we  shall  take  up  after  prov- 
ing the  historical  authority  of  St.  Matthew's  nar- 
rative. This  particular  case  comes  under  the  gen- 
eral problem  of  the  differences  found  in  our 
canonical  texts  as  regards  the  Gospel  of  the  In- 
fancy. 


ST.    MATTHEW,    CHAPT.    I    AND  2. 

That  the  contents  of  these  two  chapters  are 
well  connected,  must  be  granted.  St.  Joseph's 
perplexity  gives  rise  to  the  apparition  of  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord,  who  manifests  to  him  the  mystery 
of  the  Virginal  Conception  (i  i^*-^).  As  soon 
as  Christ  is  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Juda,  some 
Magi  come  from  the  East  to  adore  Him,  and  this 
precisely  awakens  the  jealousy  of  old  Herod.  To 
strike  more  surely  the  King  of  the  Jews,  he 
orders  the  massacre  of  all  the  children  under  two 
years  of  age,  at  Bethlehem  and  in  the  neighbor- 
hood. Acting  on  a  command  from  Heaven, 
Joseph  flees  into  Egypt  and  thus  saves  the  Child 
and  its  Mother.    After  the  death  of  Herod,  under 


214         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  reign  of  his  son,  Archelaus,  he  comes  back 
and  takes  again  his  abode  at  Nazareth  (2). 

Whatever  may  be  its  origin,  that  narrative 
flows  from  one  and  only  one  source.  We  can  take 
nothing  away  from  it  without  disturbing  deeply 
its  harmonious  limpidity.  Even  the  genealogy 
(i  ^"'^)  is  here  in  the  right  place;  the  point  of 
view  from  which  it  was  written  is  truly  that  of 
the  first  Gospel,  since  verse  20,  in  which  the  Angel 
greets  Joseph  as  the  son  of  David,  supposes  the 
first  and  the  last  verse  of  that  genealogy.  Some 
have  said  that,  strictly  speaking,  the  second  chap- 
ter can  be  understood  independently  of  the  first, 
but  this  is  a  groundless  statement,  opposed  by 
verse  13,  which  brings  St.  Joseph  before  us  and 
does  not  introduce  him  to  us,  simply  because  this 
is  already  done  in  the  first  chapter. 

What  is  the  source  used  here  by  St.  Matthew? 
There  is  neither  in  tradition  nor  in  the  text  any- 
thing from  which  we  may  gather  a  positive 
answer  to  this  question.  All  that  can  be  affirmed 
is  that  that  source  differs  from  the  source  made 
use  of  by  St.  Luke.  Even  though  Jesus  and  His 
Mother  continue  to  be,  in  the  main,  the  centre  of 
the  whole  narrative,  still  its  author  manifestly 
intends  to  bring  into  prominence  the  part  played 
by  the  just  Joseph  in  the  history  of  the  Savior's 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    215 

Nativity  and  early  childhood,  and  this  has  led 
some  critics  to  conclude  that  the  tradition  recorded 
by  St.  Matthew  is  of  Galilean  origin  and  that  it 
probably  originated  in  the  circles  where  Joseph 
was  well  known. 

That  the  source  of  these  first  two  chapters  is 
different  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Gospel, 
can  be  well  supposed,  but  their  historical  value  is 
neither  destroyed  nor  even  decreased  by  that 
hypothesis.*  One  thing  which  is  certain,  because 
we  find  its  echo,  as  it  were,  in  all  the  phrases  of 
the  text,  is  this :  as  they  are  read  here,  the  narra- 
tives of  the  Infancy  originated  in  Palestine  and 
were  transmitted  to  us  by  communities  of  Chris- 
tians, who  had  come  over  from  the  Synagogue. 


*  Wellhausen  begins  his  commentary  of  St.  Matthew 
(1904)  with  Chapter  III,  as  if  the  first  two  chapters  did 
not  exist  at  all.  To  do  this,  one  must  be  conscious  of 
soaring  far  above  the  rank  and  file  of  men !  The  most 
recent  commentator  of  St.  Matthew,  W.  C.  Allen,  in  the 
collection  The  International  Critical  Commentary  (1907), 
is  more  conservative.  For  him  the  narratives  of  the  In- 
fancy belong  integrally  to  the  first  Gospel,  although  St. 
Matthew  holds  them  from  a  tradition  which  is  peculiar  to 
him.  These  narratives  were  most  probably  current  in 
Palestinian  communities  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  first 
century.     Cf.  pp.  xiii,  lix-lxiii,  21. 

16 


2i6         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 


We  find  in  the  Gospel  very  few  pages  as  replete 
with  allusions  to  Holy  Writ,  to  Jewish  customs 
and  preoccupations,  as  these  pages  actually  are. 
The  reader  is  supposed  to  know  that,  according  to 
the  wording  of  the  Law,*  betrothal  is  juridically 
equivalent  to  marriage  itself  (i  ^^).  The  author 
lays  stress  on  the  meaning  of  the  name  Jesus, 
which  signifies  in  Hebrew,  God's  Salvation  (i  ^^)  ; 
he  plays  upon  the  word,  Nazarene  (2  ^^),  and  in 
such  a  way  that,  probably,  he  knows  he  can  be 
understood  only  by  those  whose  ears  are  able  to 
catch  the  similarity  of  sounds  which  exists,  in 
Hebrew,  between  Nazareth  and  Nazir.  To  what 
Christians  could  this  comparison  appeal  but  to 
those  of  Nazareth  itself,  and  to  those  of  Pales- 
tine, who  were  commonly  called  Nazarseans  ?  f 
Of  all  the  Biblical  texts  quoted  here — and  the 
Messianic  import  of  which  is  taken  for  granted, — 
there  is  at  least  one  that  would  have  escaped  the 
attention  of  an  author  writing  far  away  from  the 
scene  of  the  events  (2  ^®).  At  Bethlehem  alone 
the  tears  of  the  Holy  Innocents'  mothers  could 
recall  the  lamentations  of  Rachel,  whose  grave 


*  DeUt   22  23,  24, 

t  Cf.  Acts  24  5. 


Positive  Trustzvorthincss  of  the  Texts.    217 

lay  near  the  gates  of  the  little  town.*  The  paral- 
lel drawn  between  the  national  destinies  of  Israel 
and  the  personal  destinies  of  Jesus  (2  ^^)  is  based 
on  an  exegesis  which  is  quite  in  the  manner  of 
St.  Paul,  and  which  he  had  learned  at  the  feet 
of  Gamaliel,  The  way  in  which  the  text  of 
Michaeas  is  quoted  and  used  by  the  members  of 
the  Sanhedrim  (2  °)  recalls  also  the  method  then 
in  vogue  in  Rabbinic  Schools. f  That  solicitude 
for  accuracy,  shown  in  the  expression  "Bethlehem 
in  Judaea"  (2  ^)  betrays  a  Palestinian  who  knows 
that  here  a  confusion  can  be  made.  The  few 
touches  that  vividly  describe  Herod's  suspicious, 
false  and  cruel  character,  would  meet  with  Jo- 
sephus'  approval.  The  first  Evangelist  knows 
that  Archelaus  replaced  his  father,  only  over 
Judaea  (2").  This  mere  detail,  thrown  by  the 
way,  as  it  were,  betokens  a  witness  who  speaks 
pertinently  of  the  men  and  things  of  his  country, 
for  all  know  how  easy  it  is  to  get  confused  re- 
garding the  history  of  the  Herods  and  of  the 
Roman  procurators  in  Palestine. 


*  Nay,  the  Evangelist  probably  intended  to  state  accu- 
rately the  special  Messianic  meaning  he  ascribed  to  that 
text  of  Jeremias  31  ^^,  by  using  here  t6t€  instead  of  iva. 

t  Cf.  ScHECHTER,  Some  Rabbinic  Parallels  to  the  N.  T., 
in  the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  XII,  p.  418. 


2i8         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

All  through  the  narrative,  we  feel  a  certain 
anxiety  to  state  and  prove  the  Messianic  claims 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  He  is  Son  of  God,  He 
was  supernaturally  conceived  of  Mary,  He  was 
born  and  spent  His  early  years  in  the  way  the 
Prophets  had  announced  of  the  Christ  who  was 
to  come.  Where  and  for  whom  could  these  words 
have  ever  been  written?  Until  now,  interpreters 
had  unanimously  granted  that,  judging  merely 
from  their  contents,  the  narratives  of  the  Infancy 
in  St.  Matthew  betrayed  their  unquestionably 
Judcco-Christian  origin.  The  critics  of  the  Tu- 
bingen school,  including  Strauss,  even  maintained 
that  the  Jewish  Messianic  ideal  alone  accounted' 
sufficiently  for  the  Christian  faith:  in  the  long 
run  the  hope  had  created  its  object.*  But  now 
some  critics  are  found  who  declare  that  view 
inadmissible,  at  least  as  regards  the  Virgin-Birth ; 
they  hold  that  this  last  belief  could  not  have 
grown  on  Jewish  soil;  that  it  was  transplanted 
thither  from  the  soil  of  Hellenic  thought. 

How  strange,  groundless  and  improbable  this 
opinion  is,  we  have  already  seen ;  f — here,  we 
shall  merely  draw  the  conclusion  that  naturally 


*  Cf .  above,  pp.  76  and  ff. 
t  Cf.  pp.  91-97- 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    219 

flows  from  the  critical  analysis  of  the  first  two 
chapters  of  St.  Matthew.  Those  pages  have  so 
distinct  a  Palestinian  coloring,  and  moreover  they 
form  so  intimate  a  unit,  that  we  can  hardly  think 
of  bringing  in  from  the  outside  what  is  their  very 
soul :  the  Virgin-Birth  of  Christ.  Our  opponents 
agree  that  here  we  are  on  the  ground  where  the 
question  must  receive  a  definitive  answer,  since 
they  hold  and  fondly  repeat  that  here  St.  Luke 
depends  on  St.  Matthew :  so  that  when  we  deter- 
mine accurately  the  source  of  the  first  Evangelist, 
at  the  same  time  we  find  the  gate,  as  it  were, 
through  which  that  belief  made  its  way  into  the 
New  Testament  and  into  the  Symbol  of  the  Chris- 
tian Faith. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  idea  of  the  Virgin- 
Mother  was  one  of  the  Messianic  doctrines,  that 
were  current  in  the  century  which  immediately 
preceded  the  Christian  era?  The  texts  do  not 
seem  to  justify  a  decidedly  affirmative  answer. 
The  first  words  of  Mary  to  Gabriel  who  in  the 
name  of  God,  proposes  to  her  to  become  the 
Mother  of  the  Messias,  expressed  the  wish  to 
know  how  that  could  be  done.  To  the  claims  of 
the  Christian  apologists  of  the  2d  century  the 
Jews  answer  that  the  Prophets,  including  Isaias, 
never  made  such  a  prediction.     Hence,  in  their 


220         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Greek  translations  of  that  time,  they  fondly  ren- 
der the  Hebrew  word  'alma  by  vtavn;,  young 
maiden,  instead  of  napdivo?,  virgin.  In  his  de- 
bate with  St.  Justin,  the  Jew  Trypho  repeatedly 
and  vehemently  affirms  that  the  Messias  expected 
by  his  countrymen  is  to  be  a  man,  born  like  all 
other  men.*  This  is  also  the  view  of  most  of 
those  modern  critics  who  have  studied  with  special 
care  the  doctrines  of  the  Synagogue  of  old.f 

In  spite  of  their  conclusion,  it  still  remains  to 
explain  why  the  LXX  translated  Isaias  (7  ")  by 
Idob  ij  napdivoq.  To  Say  that  in  this  case,  as 
in  others,  they  contented  themselves  with  an  ap- 
proximately accurate  translation,  and  that  Chris- 
tian Dogma  has  much  benefited  by  their  blunder,  J 


*  Dialogue,  48. 

t  Weber,  Jildische  Thcologie,  1897,  pp.  354,  357;  Orelli, 
in  Herzog's  p.  R.  E.,  1903,  Vol.  XII,  p.  736;  Dalman,  The 
Words  of  Jesus,  p.  226.  They  purposely  extenuate,  it  is  true, 
the  bearing  of  some  texts  which  witness  in  behalf  of  the 
contrary  view.  The  Book  of  Enoch  calls  twice  the  Mes- 
sias the  Son  of  the  Woman;  but  this  reading  they  look 
upon  as  inauthentic,  even  though,  in  chapter  62  ^,  it  is 
upheld  by  all  MSS.,  except  G.  Now,  this  last  witness,  pre- 
ferred here  to  all  others,  is  declared  to  be  in  the  wrong 
at  chapter  69  29,  precisely  because  in  this  place,  it  favors 
the  condemned  reading.  See  R.  H.  Charles,  The  Book 
of  Enoch,  p.  164. 

t  This  is  the  opinion  of  Herzog,  loc.  cit.,  p.  126. 


Positive  Trustzvorthiness  of  the  Texts.    22 1 

is  not  to  unravel  the  knot,  but  to  cut  it  off  heed- 
lessly. The  best-balanced  critics  will  most  prob- 
ably still  continue  to  believe  that  this  translation 
may  reecho  some  ancient  tradition  about  the 
meaning  of  the  text  of  Isaias :  a  text  the  bearing 
of  which  may  have  been  determined  more  accu- 
rately, when  compared  with  the  parallel  text  of 
Michaeas. 

The  little  esteem  entertained  by  the  Jews  for 
the  state  of  virginity  may  have  been  the  motive 
why  among  them  the  public  mind  never  took  up 
resolutely  the  direction  pointed  out  by  the  Proph- 
ets. But  here  again,  we  must  avoid  any  exaggera- 
tion, lest  we  might  run  counter  to  other  texts.  It 
seems  quite  certain  that,  in  the  first  century  of  our 
era,  celibacy  was  deemed  by  many  Jews  a  state 
more  perfect  and  more  favorable  to  the  worship 
of  God,  since,  according  to  Philo  and  Josephus, 
there  were,  during  their  lifetime,  more  than  4000 
Essenes  who  made  a  public  profession  of  con- 
tinence.* The  Jews  dreaded  barrenness  in  wed- 
lock far  more  than  celibacy,  because  the  former 
was  looked  upon  as  the  result  of  some  divine 
chastisement. 


*  Philo,   edit.   Mangey,   ii,   457 ;    Josephus,   Ant.   Jud., 
xviii,  I,  5. 


222         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Whatever  may  be  the  right  view  as  to  the 
Jewish  state  of  mind  regarding  virginity,  it  is 
certain  that  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaias 
was  not  self-evident  nor  cogent  from  the  mere 
text ;  *  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  too  faintly  sup- 
ported by  tradition,  to  have  exercised  on  the  be- 
lief of  Christians  in  the  virginal  conception  of 
Jesus  the  decisive  influence  which  Keim  and  Har- 
nack,  and  before  them  Strauss  ascribed  to  that 
text.  That  belief  remains  a  distinctly  Christian 
dogma,  even  though  it  originated  in  surroundings 
where  a  certain  number  of  ideas  of  Jewish  origin 
may  have  prepared  the  way  for  it. 

From  this  instance,  the  reader  may  infer  the 
bold  and  biased  character  of  the  affirmation  of 
Baur  and  of  his  disciples,  when  they  claimed  that 
the  picture  of  the  Messias  was  to  be  found  ready 
made  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  what  the 
Christians  had  to  do,  was  merely  to  apply  it  to 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  through  a  kind  of  retrospec- 
tive exegesis. 

The  Messianic  prophecies,  and  still  more  the 
interpretation  they  received,  had  neither  the  sim- 
plicity nor  the  clearness  which  that  theory  sup- 
poses.    Made  of  various  details  found  here  and 


*  CoRLUY,  Spicilegium,  Vol.  I,  p.  406. 


Positive  Tnisfzvorthiucss  of  the  Texts.    227, 

there,  they  acquire  some  distinctness  only  when 
seen  as  a  whole.  Now  the  difficulty  lies  precisely 
in  making  the  synthesis  of  elements  the  mutual 
relations  of  which  are  far  from  self-evident,  and 
which  seem  even  to  exclude  one  another.  Hence 
we  find  among  the  Jews  contradictory  views  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  Christ  and  the  character  of 
His  work.  Whilst  the  Scribes  declare  that  the 
Messias  shall  spring  from  the  family  of  David 
and  be  born  at  Bethlehem,*  the  people  at  large 
believe  that  He  shall  manifest  Himself  suddenly 
and  that  the  place  from  which  He  is  to  come  shall 
not  be  known,  t 

Some  indeed  there  are  who  think  they  can  solve 
that  antinomy  by  saying  that  "during  the  century 
which  preceded  the  Christian  era,  the  Messianic 
idea  assumed  among  the  Jews  two  different 
shapes.  The  Messias  of  the  prophetical  school 
was  to  issue  from  the  family  of  David,  the  Mes- 
sias of  the  Apocalyptic  school  was  to  appear  on 
the  clouds  of  Heaven."  | 


*  Matt  2  ",  22  ^^. 
t  John  727. 


t  Herzog,  La   Conception  virgin,   du   Christ,   loc.   cif.,  p. 
118. 


224         ^^^^  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  indeed  a  simple  and  easy  work  to  speak  of 
a  prophetical  and  of  an  apocalyptic  school,  of  a 
Davidic  and  of  a  Heavenly  Christ :  these  general- 
izations may  seduce  those  who  are  not  familiar 
with  the  texts;  but  others  they  cannot  deceive. 
Bousset,  whose  competence  on  this  subject  is  be- 
yond question,  warns  us  that  here  hasty  classifica- 
tions must  be  carefully  avoided :  "These  new  con- 
cepts (the  apocalyptic  concepts)  are  combined  and 
welded  with  the  old  ones,  under  the  shape  of 
strange  and  contradictory  images.  In  those  com- 
promises, the  latter  are  often  predominant,  whilst 
at  times  the  former  impart  their  peculiar  character 
to  the  (Messianic)  hope  taken  as  a  whole,  and 
then  there  remain  but  few  vestiges  of  the  national 
Hope  of  God.  In  fine,  toward  the  close  of  the 
period  of  which  we  are  speaking,  the  two  cycles 
of  Hopes  proceed  altogether  confused."  * 


*  W.  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums  in  neutestam. 
Zeitalter  (2d  edit.),  p.  278.  After  quoting  the  passage 
given  in  the  text,  Father  L.  de  Grandmaison  adds  these 
significant  words:  "As  a  matter  of  fact,  among  the  docu- 
ments of  that  time  whether  they  come  from  Palestine  or 
from  the  Dispersion;  whether  from  the  Hellenizing  Jews 
or  from  the  Jews  who  remained  Jews  only,  all  those 
which  tell  us  of  a  personal  Messias,  have  the  apocalyptic 
features  combined  with  the  traditional  features.  Even  in 
the  17th  Psalm  of  Solomon,  which  expresses  almost  with- 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    225 

Distinct  as  these  two  views  may  be,  still  they 
do  not  differ  so  much  as  to  entitle  us  to  say  that 
the  Christ  of  the  Prophets  belonged  exclusively 
to  a  school,  whilst  the  Christ  of  the  Apocalypse 
was  that  of  the  people  at  large.  In  the  same 
chapter  of  St.  John,  where  some  Jews  who  had 
come  to  Jerusalem  for  the  feast  profess  to  expect 
a  Messias  whose  origin  will  not  be  known,  others 
recall  that,  according  to  the  words  of  Holy  Writ, 
He  is  to  be  born  at  Bethlehem  and  to  descend 
from  David.* 

This  being  the  case,  how  could  Christians  have 
seriously  thought  of  drawing  up  and  composing, 
by  means  of  the  Scriptures  alone  and  without  any 
historical  ground  and  support,  a  kind  of  Life  of 
the  Messias,  which  would  just  fit  the  character  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?  Besides,  even  supposing  they 
had  made  the  attempt,  we  may  think  that  their 
text  would  be  quite  different  from  what  it  actually 

out  alloy  the  national  idea  of  the  Messias,  as  a  king 
and  as  a  son  of  David,  we  find  traces  of  ideal  representa- 
tion, pointed  out  most  appositely  by  the  authors  to  whom 
Herzog  refers.  In  his  final  conclusion  the  latter  passes 
by  also  the  unequivocal  restrictions  made  by  H.  Holtz- 
MANN  (Lehrbuch  der  N.  T.  Theologie,  I,  411)  and  W. 
BoussET,  loc.  cit.,  p.  493,  note."  Etudes,  May  20,  1907,  p. 
506. 
*JoHN  727.42. 


226         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

is  :  for  what  purpose  would  they  have  given  rise — 
deliberately,  it  would  seem — to  difficulties  against 
their  own  thesis,  by  quoting  texts  of  which  it 
is  no  easy  task  to  defend  the  Messianic  character, 
whilst  they  do  not  mention  other  texts  which 
apparently  should  have  called  their  attention  ?  * 

It  is  chiefly  in  connection  with  St.  Matthew 
that  some  critics  have  spoken  of  myth  and  legend 
in  the  narratives  of  the  Savior's  Infancy.  The 
angel  of  God,  who  always  appears  in  a  dream, 
some  Magi  called  and  led  by  a  star,  the  slaughter 
of  all  the  children  of  Bethlehem,  that  were  two 
years  old  and  under  that  age,  the  flight  into 
Egypt :  all  these  events  do  not  tally  with  the  usual 
tone  of  the  Gospel  history  and  seem  to  have  their 
parallel  in  the  legends  of  heroes. 

Some  liberal  Protestants,  whose  criticism,  how- 
ever, was  not  without  conservative  tendencies, 
were  so  much  impressed  with  those  considera- 
tions, that  they  came  to  discard  here  the  historical 
character  of  the  narrative,  and  to  preserve  only 
its  religious  value.  This  was  the  view  taken,  for 
instance,  by  E.  Reuss.f     Others  do  not  go  to  that 


*  For  instance,  why  does  St.  Matthew  2 1^,  quote  Jerem. 
31  1^,  and  omit  Numbers  24  ^^  and  Isaias  60^? 

^  Hist,  cvangelique,  p.  157. 


Positive  Tnisfworthincss  of  flic  Texts.    227 

length.  Still  they  think  they  can  solve  the  diffi- 
culty, through  the  theory  of  the  Hebrew  midrash: 
we  have,  it  seems,  a  history  related  with  a  great 
deal  of  freedom,  for  the  purpose  of  edification, 
and  chiefly  for  that  of  imparting  to  the  Messianic 
faith,  a  concrete  and  popular  expression.* 

Even  though  we  grant  that  some  popular  way 
of  relating  facts  may  have  influenced  here  and 
there  the  form  of  the  narrative,  for  instance  in 
what  refers  to  the  star  of  the  Magi,  we  maintain 
that  the  method  of  strictly  historical  criticism  is 
not  here  so  deficient  as  is  claimed  by  some  schol- 
ars. The  Evangelist  intends  to  relate;  he  distin- 
guishes the  meaning  and  bearing  of  his  tradition 
from  the  didactic  character  of  the  parables  which 
he  records  some  pages  after,  in  chapter  xiii.  From 
a  mere  reading  of  the  text  it  is  easy  to  gather 
that  such  is  his  state  of  mind  in  that  regard ; 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  has  always  been 
thus  understood.  In  these  circumstances,  a  be- 
liever will  take  unhesitatingly  the  narrative  of  the 
sacred  writer  in  the  sense  the  latter  intended  to 
assign  to  it,  and  look  upon  it  as  true  history. 
When  dealing  with  unbelievers,  the  apologist  will 
show  merely  that  the  history  of  Jesus'  infancy 


*  Cf .  G.  H.  Box,  loc.  cit.,  p.  80. 


228         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

must  have  seemed  plausible  to  the  Evangelist, 
and  that,  through  his  text,  it  has  come  down  to 
us,  with  all  the  necessary  guarantees,  so  that  no 
serious  historian  may,  a  priori,  relegate  it  in  the 
lump  to  the  class  of  legends. 

I.  The  Dreams. — Five  times,  in  these  two 
chapters,  we  find  the  Divine  will  manifested  in 
dreams :  four  times  to  Joseph,  and  once  to  the 
Magi.  All  know  that  among  the  Ancients,  dreams 
played  a  great  part  in  divination.  The  Jews  also 
must  have  looked  upon  sleep,  as  favorable  to 
Yahweh's  communications.  Did  they  not  read 
in  Holy  Writ  that  several  of  their  ancestors  had 
been  blessed  with  Divine  dreams?  True,  Jere- 
mias  raises  at  times  his  voice  against  the  "proph- 
ets diviners,"  *  because  self-illusion  and  deceit 
can  more  easily  creep  into  night  visions  than  into 
the  waking  state ;  but  for  that  reason  he  does  not 
mean  to  set  aside  altogether  that  mode  of  heav- 
enly revelations.  Had  he  done  so,  he  would  have 
gone  against  Jewish  traditions  and  the  text  of  the 
Law  itself.f 

Divine  dreams  occur  more  seldom  in  the  New 
than  in  the  Old  Testament;  but  still  even  there 


*  Jerem.  23  25,  27  9,  29  8. 

t  Numbers  12  «,  Deut.  13  ^'^ ;  cf.  /  Kings  28  «•  i^. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    229 

they  do  occur.  We  find  them  not  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Infancy  alone;  the  author  of  the  Acts 
relates  some  that  are  closely  connected  with  St. 
Paul's  history :  *  St.  Luke  would  not  have  re- 
ceived those  night  visions  into  his  narrative,  had 
he  not  deemed  them  sufficiently  grounded.  In 
his  eyes,  the  thing  itself  was  possible;  and  it  was 
worthy  of  belief,  because  of  the  credit  of  those 
by  whom  it  was  related.  Why  would  St.  Joseph's 
dreams  be  more  open  to  suspicion  than  those  of 
St.  Paul  ?  As  the  Apostle,  so  the  foster-father  of 
Jesus  was  able  to  control  and  ascertain  their 
divine  origin  by  means  of  the  events  which  fol- 
lowed and  agreed  with  the  prediction  of  which 
those  events  were  the  object.  Taking  the  text  as 
it  is — and  this  we  must  do,  since  that  text  is  the 
only  ground  of  positive  information — the  reader 
does  not  feel  the  need  even  to  guard  against  the 
suspicion  of  deceit,  because  of  the  manifest  candor 
and  sincerity  of  the  witness:  it  is  indeed  from 
that  page  that  the  traditional  portrait  of  the  "just 
Joseph"  has  been  drawn.  Illusion?  But  here 
the  so-called  visionary  is  not  one  of  those  who 
are  easily  worked  up :  far  from  making  use  of  the 
revelation  he  has  just  received  regarding  Jesus' 

*Acts  16  9,  18  9,  23  11,  2723;  cf.  Matt.  27  i^ 


230         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

unique  destiny,  to  rely  presumptuously  on  some 
miraculous  help  from  Heaven,  Joseph  fulfills  the 
orders  given  him,  just  as  though  the  safety  of 
the  Child  and  of  Its  mother  depended  only  on  his 
exertions. 

Why  does  the  Angel  of  God  appear,  in  St. 
Luke,  during  the  day,  whilst  in  St.  Matthew,  he 
appears  in  dreams  ?  *  The  most  plausible  ac- 
count will  always  be  that  the  narratives  differ, 
simply  because  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  events 
occurred  differently.  The  first  Evangelist  is  a 
priori  neither  ignorant  of  nor  averse  to  heavenly 
manifestations  that  may  occur  during  the  state 
of  wake;  at  least  seven  are  mentioned  in  his 
Gospel ;  f  therefore  St.  Joseph's  dream  does  not 
depend  at  all  on  his  special  way  of  looking  at  the 
events  and  of  relating  them. 

Only  those  critics  who  have  made  up  their 
minds  to  ignore  psychology,  only  they  can  claim 
that  the  revelation  made  to  St.  Joseph  is  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  revelation  made  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin,    in    St.    Luke.      Mary's   testimony,    in   a 


*  However,  taking  only  the  letter  of  St.  Luke's  text,  we 
cannot  say  with  certainty  whether  the  Angel  Gabriel  ap- 
peared to  Mary  in  her  waking  time  or  not. 

tMATT.   4",    173,   2753,    28  5' 9'". 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    231 

matter  which  concerned  her  so  closely,  could  not 
suffice  her  husband;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  not  titting  that  the  Incarnation  should  take 
place  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the 
one,  who  was  to  be  most  intimately  associated 
with  that  work  of  God. 

A  last  remark  may  be  made  in  behalf  of  the 
objective  character  of  the  narrative.  Had  they 
yielded  to  their  respective  natural  tendency  and 
genius,  St.  Matthew  would  have  ascribed  to  the 
Heavenly  Messenger  the  announcement  of  a  King 
Messias,  coming  into  this  world  to  set  up  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  whilst  St.  Luke  would  have 
ascribed  to  the  same  messenger  the  promise  of  a 
Messias,  author  of  Salvation  for  all  mankind. 
Now,  we  have  just  the  contrary :  in  St.  Matthew, 
the  x\ngel  speaks  of  Salvation  (i  ^^),  and  in  St. 
Luke,  of  a  Kingdom  (i  ^-'  ^^). 

2.  The  Magi. — Kepler  suggests  that  we  iden- 
tify the  star  of  the  Magi  with  a  natural  phenom- 
enon, the  conjunction  of  Jupiter,  Saturn  and 
Mars,  which  occurred  probably  in  the  year  747- 
748  u.  c*     In  spite  of  that  attractive  supposition, 

*Th.  Zahn,  Das  Evang.  des  Matthdus,  1905,  pp.  98-102, 
upholds  the  hypothesis  of  a  merely  natural  phenomenon, 
described  by  the  Evangelist,  not  with  scientific  accuracy, 
but  in  a  popular  language  and  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  astrology  of  the  Magi. 


232         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

interpreters  hold  generally  that  the  sign  given  to 
the  Magi  took  place  outside  the  laws  of  nature, 
and  that  therefore  it  is  beyond  the  field  and  reach 
of  astronomy.  Besides,  the  apologist  has  now 
to  justify  his  claims  no  longer  before  the  tri- 
bunal of  science,  but  before  that  of  history. 

Some  claimed  to  have  found  how  the  narrative 
of  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  originated.  That 
narrative,  we  are  told,  was  a  mere  adaptation  of 
an  event  which  made  some  sensation  in  the  Roman 
Empire,  toward  the  middle  of  the  first  century.* 
Some  Magi  came  to  Rome  to  adore  Nero,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  king  of  the  Parthians,  Tiri- 
dates.  .  .  .  But  what  about  the  star?  It 
may  have  found  its  way  into  the  narrative  from 
two  sides :  Christians  may  have  remembered  the 
star  of  Jacob,  foretold  by  Balaam,  or  still  more 
readily,  the  profession  of  the  Magi,  who  were 
Astrologers. — Even  with  a  big  grain  of  good- 
will, one  can  hardly  find  a  real  analogy  between 
the   Gospel,    and    Pliny's   narrative,    except   that 


*Dio  Cassius,  Ixiii,  1-7;  Pliny,  Hist,  nat.,  xxx,  6; 
Suetonius,  Vita  Neronis,  XIII.  Our  readers  may  find  in 
SoLTAu,  Die  Geburtgeschichte  J.  C,  1902,  p.  27,  the  exposi- 
tion of  that  bold  hypothesis. — G.  A.  van  den  Burgh  van 
Einsinga,  Judische  EinflUsse  auf  evangel.  Erzahlungen, 
1904,  insists  especially  on  the  story  of  the  wise  man  Asita 
coming  to  do  homage  to  the  child  Buddha. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    233 

both  refer  to  some  Magi;  whilst  a  radical  dif- 
ference between  them  can  be  easily  perceived.  It 
is  not  of  his  own  accord  that  Tiridates  wends  his 
way  to  Rome,  he  is  not  led  by  faith  nor  does  he 
come  prompted  by  love,  to  seek  after  a  Savior: 
he  comes  to  appease  a  tyrant.  In  vain  some  insist 
on  these  two  features  of  the  narrative,  that  the 
Parthian  king  knelt  before  Nero  and  went  back 
to  his  country  by  a  way  different  from  that  by 
which  he  had  come.  The  former  detail  has  noth- 
ing striking  and  extraordinary  in  that  occasion; 
as  to  the  latter,  it  lacks  precisely  the  feature 
which  is  characteristic  in  St.  Matthew,  namely, 
the  intention  of  the  Magi  to  spoil  the  designs 
of  Herod.  What  would  be  the  results,  if,  in 
order  to  infer  the  literary  dependence  of  two 
writings,  we  would  apply  to  classical  authors  the 
proceedings  which  "hypercritics"  take  the  liberty 
to  use  when  dealing  with  the  Gospel? 

That  the  prophecy  of  the  star  which  was  to 
come  out  of  Jacob  has  always  been  understood 
allegorically,  of  the  person  itself  of  the  Messias; 
and  not  of  a  star  which  was  to  manifest  His  birth, 
is  witnessed  by  the  Tar  gums  of  the  Jews  of  old. 
This  was  also  the  interpretation  given  to  it  by  the 
Pseudo-Messias  Barcokebas  when  he  claimed  to 
apply  to  himself  Balaam's  prediction.    Again,  had 


234         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

the  text  of  Numbers  played  in  the  rise  and  growth 
of  the  so-called  legend  about  the  wise  men's  star, 
the  part  assigned  to  it,  why  is  it  that  our  Evan- 
gelist, who  is  so  anxious  to  notice  the  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecies  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  does  not 
even  allude  to  it?  He  seems  to  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  it. 

Rightly  indeed  does  Christian  Liturgy  comment 
upon  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  by  means  of  the 
passages  in  which  Isaias  extols  the  glory  of  Sion, 
on  the  day  when  the  Gentiles  shall  come  and  pay 
her  their  homages,  and  the  men  from  the  East 
drive  toward  Jerusalem  the  long  file  of  their 
dromedaries  laden  with  gifts.*  But,  to  draw 
from  these  poetical  descriptions  St.  Matthew's 
narrative,  with  its  concrete  and  special  details,  no 
exegesis,  not  even  the  most  fanciful  exegesis,  can 
suffice :  of  that  narrative  at  least  some  historical 
support  and  background  must  be  sought  in  the 
real  occurrence  of  the  events.  Here  again,  why 
does  the  canonical  Gospel  quote  neither  Isaias 
nor  the  Psalms,  as  was  done  by  the  Apocryphals  ? 

A  recently  found  document  enables  us — so  we 
are  told — to  determine  the  epoch  when  the  legend 
of  the  adoration  of  the  Magi  was  arranged  or  at 
least  found  its  way  into  the  Gospel :  is  this  true  ? 


*  Isaias  6o  and  6i ;  cf.  Psalms  72  lo-  "•  is,  68  29. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    235 

A  Syriac  text  (of  which  the  author  is  unknown, 
although  it  has  been  ascribed  to  Eusebius),  pub- 
lished in  1866  by  W.  Wright,  tells  us  of  Balaam 
foretelling  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrians  by 
the  Greeks,  and  the  rise  of  a  star  in  Israel.  The 
prophecy  was  communicated  by  Balaam  to  the 
Assyrian  king  then  in  power,  and  deposited  in  the 
royal  archives.  When  the  proper  time  came, 
under  the  rule  of  Pir  Shabour,  the  star  did  actu- 
ally appear,  and  some  Magi  were  sent  to  the  Jews' 
country.  The  text  itself  of  that  document  was 
later  on  sought  and  found  by  men  "well  read  in 
the  Sacred  Books,"  who  had  been  struck  by  the 
agreement  between  the  inspired  text  and  the  nar- 
rative of  the  wonderful  events,  related  to  them. 
From  the  inscription  placed  at  the  end  of  the 
MS.,  we  may  gather  that  this  occurred  in  the 
year  430  (according  to  the  era  of  the  Seleucids), 
under  the  rule  of  Hadrian  Caesar,  and  the  epis- 
copate of  Sixtus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  i.  e.,  in  the 
year  118-119  a.  d.* 


*  The  Syriac  text  was  published  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature,  New  Series,  Vols.  IX  and  X,  April  and  Octo- 
ber, 1866.  It  was  set  forth  as  the  source  of  Matt,  i  and  2, 
by  CoNYBEARE,  in  the  Guardian,  April  29,  1903,  and  by 
ScHMiEDEL,  in  Encycl.  Biblica,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1892-1893;  and  is 
discussed  by  Nestle  and  Hilgenfeld,  in  Z.  W.  T.,  1893, 
p.  435,  and  1895,  p.  447- 


236         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

First  of  all,  why  would  not  the  "Sacred  Books" 
mentioned  in  that  document,  be  the  Christian 
writings  of  the  New  Testament?  The  researches 
made  for  the  purpose  to  find  the  text  of  a  letter 
which,  according  to  the  legend,  had  been  written 
by  Balak,  may  have  been  prompted  by  the  desire 
to  give  a  confirmation  to  St.  Matthew's  narrative, 
as  is  maintained  by  Th.  Zahn  and  W.  C.  Allen.* 
That  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  but  what  follows  is 
certain:  before  the  year  107,  St.  Ignatius  looks 
upon  the  episode  of  the  Magi  as  so  well  known, 
that  he  dwells  with  frequency  and  even  with 
some  exaggeration  on  the  greatness  and  brilliancy 
of  the  sign  given  by  Heaven,  to  reveal  the  birth 
of  the  Son  of  the  Virgin.f 

The  adoration  of  the  Magi  has  not  the  same 
purport  as  that  of  the  shepherds.  The  revelation 
made  to  those  men  of  the  East,  who  were  foreign 
to  the  Jewish  religion,  distinctly  proclaims,  at  the 
start  of  the  Gospel,  the  universal  character  of  the 
salvation  brought  by  Jesus.  Now,  since  that  uni- 
versal character  of  Christianity  is  not  particularly 


*Th.  Zahn,  Introd.  to  the  Nezv  Test.,  1909,  vol.  II,  p. 
527;  W.  C.  Allen,  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to 
St.  Matthew,  p.  22. 

^Ad.  Ephes.,  XIX. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    237 

emphasized  in  what  follows,  it  may  be  that  in 
this  circumstance  we  have  another  proof  that  St. 
Matthew  drew  from  a  special  source  the  contents 
of  these  two  chapters.  In  the  person  of  the  shep- 
herds called  to  the  crib  of  Jesus,  the  third  Gospel 
intends  to  represent  those  privileged  ones,  who 
owe  this  favor  to  the  simplicity  of  their  social 
condition  and  to  the  uprightness  of  their  hearts : 
"good-will"  is  found  chiefly  among  them.  Here 
again  St.  Luke  remains  the  "Evangelist  of  the 
poor" :  between  the  two  Epiphanies,  his  choice 
went  to  that  of  the  lowly. 

3.  The  Massacre  of  the  Innocents. — This  is  a 
rather  strange  event;  had  it  occurred,  it  would 
have  been  mentioned  by  Flavins  Josephus,  who 
dwells  at  length  on  Herod's  cruel  deeds :  that  is 
the  objection. 

The  so-called  lack  of  plausibility  rests  chiefly 
on  an  overestimation  of  the  number  of  the  chil- 
dren that  were  killed  at  Herod's  command.  Judg- 
ing from  the  population  of  the  little  town  of 
Bethlehem,  the  children  under  two  years  of  age 
must  not  have  been  more  than  twenty  or  thirty. 
Josephus  may  have  known  the  fact,  and  yet  not 
felt  obliged  to  relate  it :  to  give  an  idea  of  the 
savage  deeds  coolly  perpetrated  by  the  old  tyrant, 
the  historian  had  but  the  difficulty  of  choosing. 


238         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

As  it  is,  his  arraignment  is  most  severe,  since 
he  imputes  to  Herod  the  murder  of  his  wife, 
Mariamne,  of  his  mother-in-law  Alexandra,  of 
three  of  his  sons :  Aristobulus,  Alexander  and 
Antipater,  of  his  brother-in-law  Costobar  and  of 
his  uncle  Joseph,  to  say  nothing  of  a  hecatomb  of 
Pharisees,  and  of  the  command  he  gave,  when 
dying,  to  put  to  death  many  men  of  note,  who 
were  to  be  gathered  in  the  hippodrome  of  Jericho. 

In  view  of  such  deeds,  the  killing  of  some 
twenty  little  children,  most  of  them  born  of 
obscure  peasants,  must  not  have  appealed  much 
to  public  attention ;  the  more  so  that  St.  Matthew's 
text  does  not  say  that  the  execution  took  place 
everywhere  on  the  same  day,  nor  that  only  one 
mode  of  bloody  death  was  resorted  to :  let  us  not 
be  deceived  by  the  representations  of  traditional 
iconography. 

4.  The  Flight  into  Egypt. — Usener  asks  him- 
self why  Egypt  is  said  to  have  been  the  place 
where  the  Holy  Family  retired  for  refuge.*  In 
his  answer  he  remarks  first  that  at  that  time,  when 
there  were  many  and  prosperous  Jewish  colonists 
at  Alexandria  and  in  the  whole  Delta  of  the  Nile, 
it  was  natural  for  a  mechanic  driven  from  Judaea, 


*  Encyclop.  Biblica,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  3351. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    239 

to  take  the  road  to  Egypt :  a  remark  which  is 
most  judicious.  The  same  cannot  be  said  at  all 
of  what  follows  in  the  article  referred  to:  "Myth- 
ological ideas  also,  however,  may  have  had  their 
unconscious  influence;  it  is  to  Egypt  that,  when 
attacked  by  the  giant  Tryphon,  the  Olympian 
gods  take  their  flight" :  a  statement  like  this  is 
at  least  fifty  years  behind  the  age ! 


5.  The  Genealogies  of  Jesus  (Matt,  i  ^'^'' ; 
Luke  3  2338). — xhe  fact  that  this  has  always  been 
a  bone  of  contention  between  interpreters,  has 
not  made  the  task  of  the  apologist  easy.*  How 
explain  that  here  Jesus  is  connected  with  David 
through  two  lines  of  ancestors,  in  which  but  three 
identical  names  are  found  ?  As  was  said  already, 
whatever  may  be  their  import  and  bearing,  these 
documents  do  not  give  the  lie  to  Christ's  Virgin- 
Birth  ;  t  in  the  following  pages  we  intend  to  sum 
up,  in  a  few  strong  statements,  a  fitting  answer 
to  the  difficulty  that  arises  from  the  divergence 
in  the  two  g^enealogies. 


*  Cf.  Origen,  Cont.  Cels.,  ii,  32;  Migne,  P.  G.,  xi,  852. 
tCf.  above,  pp.  107-118;  pp.  158-160. 


240         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

(a)  First,  it  may  be  granted  that  none  of  the 
proposed  solutions  is  altogether  satisfactory ;  how- 
ever, it  must  be  observed,  too,  that  to  uphold  the 
value  of  those  genealogical  documents  taken  as 
a  whole,  we  need  not  a  perfectly  satisfactory  ex- 
planation. 

(b)  Of  all  the  attempts  of  defence,  known  to 
us,  the  oldest  is  that  of  Julius  Africanus,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  3d  century.  According  to  him, 
Jacob  is  the  real  father  of  St.  Joseph  (Matt. 
I  ^®),  whilst  Heli  is  his  legal  father,  according  to 
the  Jewish  law  called  of  the  levirate  (Luke  3  ^^). 
This  exegetical  view — Julius  Africanus  looks 
upon  his  sentiment  as  nothing  more* — does  not 
seem  to  have  met  first  with  great  success,  but  in 
the  course  of  time,  perhaps  owing  to  the  authority 
of  Eusebius,  it  became  currently  accepted  and  so 
it  remained  from  the  5th  to  the  15th  century.f 
Then  it  was  that  Annius  of  Viterbo  (1490) 
thought  he  would  do  away  with  it  in  its  founda- 
tion, by  proposing  to  see  in  St.  Matthew  the 
genealogy  of  St.  Joseph,  and  in  St.  Luke  that 


*  ''  Kai  Yi/Jilv  oiiTi}  jAtAeTw,  Ci    KaX    fJuTi    e/x,uapTvpot    ecrrt,   to)    fir)  KptiTTOva 
i)    aK-q9t<TTipa.v,    eX'"*    «»"■<'•'■        To    iiivTOi    EiayyiKiov    jroi/Tdit    a\r)9evti, 

in  EusEB.,  H.  E.,  i,  7 ;  Migne,  P.  G.,  xx,  97. 
t  Cf.  EusEB.,  loc.  cit.,  col.  89. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    241 

of  the  Blessed  Virgin;  an  hypothesis  which  was 
favorably  received,  during  the  i6th  and  17th  cen- 
turies, by  many  theologians,  chiefly  among  Prot- 
estants, and  is  still  taken  up  by  Bacuez  and  Bishop 
Le  Camus.*  However,  its  weak  point  is  mani- 
fest :  the  Jews  were  not  wont  to  draw  up  a  gene- 
alogy of  their  maternal  ancestors;  and  then — this 
is  the  chief  reason — no  ancient  writer,  not  even 
St.  Iren3eus,t  ever  doubted  that  both  were  St. 
Joseph's  genealogies.  The  only  advantageous 
feature  of  the  modern  view  is  its  handiness :  it 
does  away  with  the  trouble  of  reducing  to  unity 
the  genealogies  in  question  and  thus  suppresses 
the  difficulty. 

(c)  In  our  days,  there  is  a  noticeable  tendency 
to  preserve  the  starting  point  of  the  ancient  sys- 
tem, that  is,  to  see  St.  Joseph's  genealogy  both  in 
St.  Luke  and  in  St.  Matthew.  However,  instead 
of  ancestors  according  to  the  flesh  (Matthew) 
and  ancestors  according  to  the  Law  (Luke) — or 


*  Bacuez,  Manuel  Biblique,  Vol.  Ill,  n.  116  (ne\y  edit., 
by  Brassac,  n.  184)  ;  Le  Camus,  The  Life  of  Christ  (Eng- 
lish translation).  Vol.  I,  p.  151;  cf.  also  Vogt,  Der  Stamm- 
baum  Christi  bei  den  heil.  Evangelisten  Matthaus  und 
Lukas,  in  the  Biblische  Studien,  1907,  Vol.  XII,  fasc.  3. 

t  III,  xxi,  9. 


242         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

vice  versa,  according  to  some  modern  authors* — 
the  first  Gospel  would  set  forth  the  legitimate  suc- 
cession, according  to  which  the  Davidic  rights 
came  through  St.  Joseph  down  to  Jesus,  whilst 
the  third  Gospel  would  aim  at  giving  the  list  of 
the  real  and  legal  ancestors  who,  through  St. 
Joseph,  connect  Jesus  with  David.  The  former 
genealogy  would  show  how  Jesus  is  the  heir  of 
the  promises  made  to  David;  hence  it  is  framed 
from  the  juridical  point  of  view.  A  successor  is 
not  necessarily  a  son:  Joseph  may  be  the  heir 
of  Solomon  and  of  Jechonias,  even  whilst  re- 
maining, either  by  nature  or  by  the  law  of  the 
levirate,  the  real  offspring  of  the  other  line  which 
reaches  David  through  Neri  and  Nathan,  f 


*  Cf.  VCXJT,  op,  cit.,  p.  X. 

t  The  detailed  exposition  of  this  system  hinges  partly 
on  the  link  between  Zorobabel  and  Jechonias.  Ac- 
cording to  Jeremias  (2220;  cf.  36^^),  Jechonias  and  his 
descendants  are  rejected  by  God,  and  no  longer  shall  they 
have  any  authority  over  Juda :  this,  however,  is  not  the 
same  as  saying  that  the  cursed  king  was  actually  childless. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  contrary  seems  to  be  implied  by 
the  text  of  Jeremias,  and  the  author  of  Paralipomenon 
(7  Paral.,  3'^'^),  who  knew  the  prophecy,  mentions  seven  and 
perhaps  even  eight  children  of  Jechonias.  Hence  it  may  be 
surmised  that  in  St.  Matthew  (i  ^2),  'lexo""'*?  tyeVfijo-ev  toi' 
SoAafli^x  means  Jechonias  was  succeeded  by  Salathiel,  whose 
father  is  Neri,  according  to  St.  Luke  (3^'').    The  son  of 


Positive  Trnstzvortkiness  of  the  Texts.    243 

At  the  time  our  canonical  Gospels  were  drawn 
up,  there  was  a  current  dispute  in  the  rabbinic 
schools  whether  the  Messias  was  to  come  from 
David  through  Solomon  or  through  Nathan.* 
Solomon  had  died  in  idolatry ;  Jechonias,  the  last 
of  his  descendants  on  the  throne  before  the  cap- 
tivity, had  been  rejected  in  God's  name  by  the 
Prophet  Jeremias  (22^").  The  Gospel  geneal- 
ogies would  thus  satisfy  both  points  of  view, 
either  of  which,  considered  separately,  contains 
a  part  of  truth. 

Grotius  seems  to  have  first  proposed  that  theory 
which  soon  found  acceptance  on  the  part  of  many 
Catholics.    It  was  developed  by  Father  Poussines, 

Neri,  descendant  of  David  through  Nathan,  must  have 
been  substituted,  by  a  disposition  of  God,  for  the  de- 
scendants of  David  who  belonged  to  Solomon's  branch, 
and  were  rejected  in  the  person  of  Jechonias.  There  still 
remains  a  difficulty.  In  /  Parol.,  3  i»,  Zorobabel  is  the  son 
of  Phadaia  and  not  of  Salathiel,  as  in  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke.  Granting  that  the  name  Phadaia  is  authentic 
and  designates  a  personage  distinct  from  Neri — which  is 
disputed — can  we  not  suppose  here  a  case  of  levirate? 
One  of  the  two  names,  for  instance,  Phadaia,  would  be 
that  of  the  legal  father  of  Zorobabel,  the  other,  Neri,  that 
of  his  real  father. 

*  Cf.  in  EusEB.,  Quasi.  Evang.  ad  Stephanum,  iii,  2 ; 
MiGNE,  P.  G.,  xxii,  896. 


244         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

S.J.,*  and  a  few  years  later  adopted  by  the  Bol- 
landists  in  1646  in  their  short  biography  of  St. 
Joseph  for  March  ip.f 

{d)  In  this  last  hypothesis,  which  seems  to  be 
the  most  plausible,  St.  Matthew's  genealogy  has 
but  a  kind  of  conventional  value,  whilst  St.  Luke's 
genealogy  is  looked  upon  as  more  historical. 
Moreover,  the  artificial  character  of  the  gene- 
alogical document  found  in  the  first  Gospel,  be- 
trays itself  in  many  ways ;  and  first  in  its  ternary 
division  into  several  series,  each  of  two  sep- 
tenaries.  After  comparing  the  forty-two  genera- 
tions summed  up  in  verse  17,  with  the  parallel 
genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament,  one  gets  con- 
vinced that  in  the  Gospel,  intermediary  genera- 
tions had  been  purposely  omitted,  so  as  to  obtain 
a  mnemo-technic,  perhaps  symbolical  symmetry, 
which  was  intended  and  therefore  artificial.  %     On 


*  De  Concordia  Evangelist,  in  genealogia  Christi,  Tou- 
louse, 1646. 

t  This  theory  has  been  exposed  with  favor,  quite  recently, 
by  P.  GiRODON,  Commentaire  Critique  et  Moral  sur  I'Evan- 
gile  selon  S.  Luc,  p.  182,  and  thoroughly  defended  by  F.  C. 
BuRKiTT,  Evangelion  da  Mepharrashe,  ii,  pp.  258-266. 

4:  According  to  Gfrorer,  Die  heilige  Sage,  ii,  p.  9,  note  the 
arrangement  of  the  genealogy  in  St.  Matthew  is  based 
on  a  process  of  gematria,  current  among  the  Jews  for  the 


Positive  Trustzvorthiness  of  the  Texts.    245 

the  other  hand,  and  against  the  Hterary  customs 
of  the  Jews,  St.  Matthew  mentions  four  women, 
three  of  whom  were  sinners  and  one,  a  foreigner, 
to  emphasize  the  fact  that  God's  merciful  designs, 
as  regards  the  salvation  of  the  world,  did  not 
always  follow  the  way  to  which  they  would  have 
been  readily  confined  by  the  legalistic  spirit  of 
the  Pharisees.  The  genealogy  was  evidently 
framed  from  a  most  definite  doctrinal  point  of 
view :  and  this  is  a  new  proof  that  St.  Matthew 
takes  here  the  verb  kyiwrigev  in  a  rather  broad 
sense. 

The  same  preoccupations  are  not  found  in  St. 
Luke :  from  his  text  we  gather  the  impression 
that  the  Evangelist  merely  reproduced  a  document 
he  had  at  his  disposal.* 

drawing  up  of  documents  of  that  kind.  The  numeral  value 
of  David's  name — in  Hebrew  DWD — is  14:  hence,  several 
series  of  14  generations ;  and  as  the  same  name,  David, 
counts  three  letters,  the  whole  genealogy  has  been  divided 
into  three  homogeneous  series.     Cf.  Allen,  op.  cit.,  p.  6. 

*  Even  St.  Luke  is  not  altogether  free  from  artificial 
arrangement.  "It  is  not  by  chance  that  his  genealogy  con- 
tains yy  names,  seven  times  eleven,  and  that  the  various 
sections  are  divided  according  to  the  same  law."  Girodon, 
op.  cit.,  p.  183.  As  to  the  various  systems  of  redaction,  in 
connection  with  the  Old  Testament  genealogies,  cf.  F.  Prat, 
in  the  Etudes,  Vol.  LXXXVI,  pp.  488-494 ;  Vol.  XCIII,  pp. 
617-620. 


246         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

{e)  What  is  the  source  of  these  genealogies? 
Most  certainly  the  Evangelists  did  not  devise 
them.  In  St.  Matthew,  the  names  of  the  first 
series  (i^"')  are  taken  from  the  first  book  of 
Paralipomenon  (2  ^"^°) ;  those  of  the  second  se- 
ries (i  ^"")  are  from  the  same  source  (3^'^"), 
but  with  some  omissions.  As  to  the  names  of 
the  third  series,  only  two,  the  names  of  Salathiel 
and  Zorobabel,  are  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Although  we  cannot  determine  with  certainty  the 
source  from  which  St.  Luke  drew  the  half  of  his 
genealogy,  from  St.  Joseph  to  Nathan,  the  son 
of  David,  still  we  may  suppose  that,  for  want 
of  official  documents,  the  Evangelists  probably 
had  recourse  to  family  records.  Julius  Afri- 
canus  relates,  indeed,  that,  prompted  by  jealousy, 
Herod  had  all  these  genealogies  destroyed:*  but 
this  seems  hardly  probable,  and  besides,  Josephus 
does  not  mention  it  at  all.  What  Julius  Af  ricanus 
adds,  deserves  greater  consideration :  the  relatives 
of  the  Lord,  with  whom  he  conversed,  told  him 
that  they  had  reconstructed  their  genealogy  as 
well  as  they  could,  with  the  help  of  tradition  and 
of  written  documents.!     This  took  place  during 


*  EusEB.,  H.  E.,  i,  7 ;  Migne,  P.  G.,  xx,  96. 

^  Ibid.,  col.  93  and  97,  the  Desposyni  or  relatives  of  the 
Lord  came  chiefly  from  two  places :.  Na,zareth  an4  Cochaba. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    247 

the  3d  century.  We  may  reasonably  suppose 
that  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  earHer,  the 
Evangehsts  had  at  their  disposal  still  better  means 
of  information. 

(/)  In  the  minds  of  the  Evangelists,  what 
was  to  be  the  bearing  of  those  genealogies?  Of 
course,  the  Christian  belief  in  the  Davidic  descent 
of  Jesus  is  not  based  on  those  documents :  we  find 
it  just  as  emphatically  taught  by  St.  Mark  and 
St.  Paul,  even  though  they  appeal  to  no  docu- 
mentary proof.  Considered  in  their  contents, 
those  lists  of  names  have  no  special  dogmatic 
importance,  and  were  they  not  a  part  of  an  in- 
spired text,  their  study  would  be  a  matter  of 
mere  curiosity.  For  the  early  Christians,  Christ's 
human  origin  was  an  object  of  belief,  even  before 
historians  had  attempted  to  prove  it.  Jesus  was 
the  Messias  and  therefore  the  Son  of  David. 
Again,  all  knew  that  Jesus  belonged  to  a  family 
which  had  sprung  from  David,  just  as  the  same 
prerogative  was  acknowledged  in  those  of  His 
relatives  who,  on  that  very  account,  were  brought 
before  Domitian's  tribunal.*  As  far  as  we  can 
judge,  that  title  was  never  denied  to  Jesus,  dur- 
ing His  lifetime,  not  even  in  St.  John  7  "'  *^'  *^. 


*  EuSEB.,  H.  E.,  iii,  20. 

18 


248         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

But,  a  fact  known  to  the  public  at  large  is  one 
thing,  and  the  value  of  a  writen  document  that 
claims  to  prove  that  fact  is  another. 

In  the  eyes  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  the 
genealogies  evidently  could  and  did  answer  the 
purpose  which  these  two  Evangelists  had  respec- 
tively in  their  minds  when  recopying  them.  Does 
this  mean  that  our  Evangelists  positively  assure 
us  that  these  genealogies  express,  even  in  the  least 
details,  the  reality  of  things?  Here  we  are  con- 
fronted with  the  delicate  question  of  implicit 
quotations  incompletely  endorsed  by  the  sacred 
author.  It  is  generally  granted  that,  if  that 
theory  can  be  held  in  any  case  at  all,  it  is  in 
matter  of  genealogy.*  Can  we  use  it  in  this  par- 
ticular instance?  Have  we  sufficient  grounds  to 
believe  that  St.  Luke  merely  quoted  his  document  ? 


*  "By  the  very  fact  that  he  gives  us  these  documents  in 
their  special,  hieratic,  conventional  form,  and  that  he 
leaves  them  outside  and,  as  it  were,  in  the  margin  of  his 
narratives — the  sacred  historian  tells  us  quite  plainly,  it 
seems  to  me,  that  we  may  look  upon  them  as  documents  he 
quotes,  chiefly  on  account  of  their  interest  for  Jewish 
readers,  although  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  ascer- 
tain their  exact  value,  nor  ascribe  to  them  any  authority 
but  that  of  the  tradition  and  of  the  public  records  from 
which  they  were  taken."  J.  Brucker,  S.  J.,  in  the  Etudes, 
Jan.  20,  1903,  p.  229;  cf.  Dec.  20,  1906,  p.  801. 


Positive  Trustzvorthincss  of  the  Texts.    249 

The  question  may  be  asked  in  connection  with 
Rhesa  at  v.  27,  and  chiefly  in  connection  with 
Cainan,  at  v.  2>^.  Father  Pesch,  for  instance, 
thinks  that  the  difficuhy  can  be  settled,  even 
though  no  recourse  is  made  to  an  imphcit  quota- 
tion incompletely  endorsed ;  but  he  adds  immedi- 
ately :  "However,  I  do  not  blame  the  sentiment 
of  those  who  believe  that  St.  Luke  merely  records 
the  genealogy  which  the  Gentile  Christians  used 
to  read  in  the  LXX,  without  in  any  way  detract- 
ing from  or  adding  to  the  authority  of  the  state- 
ments that  are  contained  in  it.  Few  indeed  are 
those  who,  within  the  last  centuries,  have  up- 
held that  view,  but  still  they  are  no  mean  in- 
terpreters and  theologians.  All  however  unan- 
imously affirm  that,  when  'quoting'  in  that 
way,  Luke  did  not  fall  into  any  formal  error. 
Hence  the  upholders  of  implicit  quotations  may 
place  themselves  under  the  cover  of  those  theo- 
logians and  interpreters.  Besides,  there  is  in  this 
particular  case,  some  reason  to  admit  a  quotation 
of  that  kind."  * 

Eusebius  goes  much  further.     When  mention- 
ing the  various  ways  of  accounting  for  Christ's 


*  Ch.    Pesch,   S.   J.,  De  Inspiratione   Sacrw  Scripturce, 
1906,  p.  547. 


250         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

genealogies  in  the  Gospels,  he  proposes  to  extend 
to  all  the  Lucan  document  the  meaning  of  the 
short  incidental  phrase  found  at  the  beginning 
of  the  list,  w?  kvofxiCero,  as  zvas  supposed:  the 
Evangelist  would  have  merely  recorded  the  senti- 
ment of  the  Jews,  and  left  them  the  responsi- 
bility of  their  statements.*  That  opinion,  which 
is  based  on  a  misconception,  has  never  been  favor- 
ably received :  but  it  has  at  least  the  advantage 
to  show  that  the  theory  of  implicit  quotation  is 
no  novelty  in  Catholic  Exegesis. 


The  Gospel  of  the  Infancy  differs,  according  as 
we  read  it  in  St.  Matthew  or  in  St.  Luke.  Does 
it  follow  that  its  historical  value,  as  a  whole, 
must  remain  doubtful  for  those  critics  who  claim 
to  follow  a  strictly  accurate  and  scientific  method  ? 

Most  certainly,  the  difference  is  real.  And 
yet,  we  must  ever  remember  that,  as  was  observed 
already,  the  substance  of  the  narrative  is  in  both 
the  same,  especially  as  regards  the  Virgin-Birth. 
The  actual  condition  of  these  first  chapters  prove 
once  more  that,  in  his  narrative  of  the  Infancy, 
Luke  had  access  to  a  source  different  from  the 


*  MiGNE,  P.  G.,  xxii,  896. 


Positive  Trustzvorthiness  of  the  Texts.    251 

one  used  by  Matthew, — both  being  distinct  from 
the  other  sources  used  in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 
It  proves  also  that  the  traditions  concerning  the 
Savior's  infancy  grew  and  were  transmitted  inde- 
pendently. Besides,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
in  this  case  the  differences  arose  by  way  of  omis- 
sion :  one  Evangelist  relates  that  on  which  the 
other  is  silent.  In  these  conditions,  a  difference 
is  not  a  contradiction. 

The  substantial  agreement  of  several  witnesses, 
in  spite  of  the  secondary  divergences  of  their 
testimony,  is  a  proof  that  they  do  not  create  the 
whole  story  out  of  their  minds,  nor  misrepresent 
in  the  main  the  actual  fact :  only  a  previous  objec- 
tive reality  can  account  for  their  agreement.  This 
is  a  canon  of  historical  criticism.  The  Evangel- 
ists then  rest  on  a  tradition  about  the  human 
origin  and  childhood  of  Jesus. 

That  this  remark,  which  had  been  made  by  the 
writers  of  old,  is  appropriate,  is  granted  by  some 
modern  critics.  "Granted  our  Gospels  do  not 
depend  on  one  another,  we  are  thereby  justified  in 
trusting  their  historical  value.  For  in  this  case 
we  have  to  deal  with  three  independent  forms  of 
one  and  the  same  tradition,  and  even  by  the  diver- 
gences which  do  not  alter  their  fundamental  unity 


252         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

and   which   betoken   their  mutual   independence, 
they  confirm  one  another."  * 

What  is  the  value  of  that  tradition?  Is  it 
myth,  legend,  or  history?  The  differences  found 
in  the  narratives  by  which  it  is  transmitted, 
do  not  impair  its  historical  character;  from  this 
point  of  view,  they  have  either  but  little  or  even 
no  import  at  all.  Not  infrequently  does  history 
pass  to  posterity,  just  as  well  as  legend  itself,  in 
many  and  diverse  narratives,  all  of  which  can 
really  be  reconciled  with  the  truth  of  the  fact. 
Even  the  best  classical  historians  supply  us  with 
many  unquestionable  instances  of  the  kind.  On 
the  other  hand,  legend  assumes  at  times  so  char- 
acteristic a  shape  that  it  remains  uniform  and 
unchangeable.  The  perfect  agreement  of  the 
Evangelists  would  not  suffice,  then,  to  prove  the 
historical  value  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Infancy; 
nor  should  their  differences  cause  us  to  look  upon 
that  Gospel  as  a  legend.  It  is  by  the  means  of 
critical  study  of  the  contents,  by  means  of  the 
history  of  the  surroundings  where  our  texts  were 
composed,  that  the  problem  must  be  solved;  and 
to  its  solution  all  the  previous  pages  have  been 
devoted. 


*  H.    MoNNiER,   La   Mission   historique   de  Jesus,   1906, 
p.  xiv. 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    253 

However,  a  more  direct  answer  is  expected 
from  us.  Why  did  St.  Luke  say  nothing  of  the 
adoration  of  the  Magi,  which  would  have  been 
so  appropriate  in  a  Gospel,  the  aim  of  which  is 
to  manifest  the  Savior  of  the  world?  Shall  we 
account  for  that  omission,  by  ignorance  or  by 
wilful  silence  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist? 
Again,  why  does  St.  jMatthew,  who,  in  the  course 
of  his  Gospel,  expressly  observes  that  Christ  came 
to  fulfil  the  Law,  omit  the  performance  of  the 
Mosaic  rites,  at  the  circumcision  of  Jesus,  and 
at  His  presentation  and  recovery  in  the  Tem- 
ple? These  are  the  only  omissions  which  really 
make  a  difficulty.  The  silence  of  the  third 
Evangelist  about  the  adoration  of  the  Magi 
easily  accounts  for  his  not  having  mentioned  the 
massacre  of  the  Innocents  and  the  flight  into 
Egypt :  these  last  two  events  can  be  understood 
only  in  connection  with  the  first.  Likewise  we 
can  readily  understand  why  St.  Matthew  is  silent 
regarding  the  Angel's  apparition  to  Mary,  and 
records  only  that  granted  to  St.  Joseph :  as.  the 
first  Evangelist  looks  at  the  Incarnation  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Jewish  law,  Joseph,  Mary's  hus- 
band, remains,  in  his  eyes,  the  centre  of  the  whole 
mystery. 


254         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Many  attempts  have  been  made  to  solve  the 
problem  of  the  harmony  to  be  established  here 
between  the  first  and  the  third  Gospel.  The 
reader  may  find  those  combinations  in  the  Lives 
of  Jesus  written  by  Catholics  or  by  non-Catholics. 
They  are  no  novelties,  since,  as  early  as  the  2d 
century,  Tatian  and  St.  Irenaeus  made  the  attempt 
to  complete  one  Evangelist  by  the  other;  most  of 
these  attempts  are  clever;  some  seem  even  to  be 
most  plausible :  however,  after  all,  they  are  mere 
hypotheses.  It  may  be  that  the  right  solution  has 
not  yet  been  found. 

When  we  attempt  to  state,  not  what  an  author 
knew,  but  what  he  did  not  know,  why  he  put  this 
here  rather  than  there,  and  especially  why  he 
remained  silent,  when  in  all  probability  he  might 
have  spoken, — then  indeed  we  need  a  great  deal 
of  discretion  and  reserve.  Historians — the  serious 
ones — those  who  have  become  familiar  with  the 
critical  study  of  documents,  know  that  in  matters 
of  that  kind,  one  is  often  wiser  in  not  knowing 
than  in  pretending  a  knowledge  of  questionable 
value.  We  are  a  priori  unfavorably  impressed  by 
easy  solutions  and  by  a  peremptory  tone. 

Besides  the  narrative  of  the  Infancy,  there  are 
in  the  Gospels  many  other  passages  that  call  for 
moderation  in  our  judgments.    Let  me  refer  only 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    255 

to  the  instance  already  pointed  out  by  Rose. 
"According  to  all  critics,  St.  Luke  knew  the 
journey  of  Jesus  to  Tyre  and  to  Sidon,  and 
yet  he  has  not  recorded  that  excursion  which 
favored  his  thesis.  We  must  then  seek  for 
another  explanation  of  those  omissions.  Even 
though  the  author  tells  us  that  he  writes  "in 
order,"  we  must  not  infer  that  he  intends  to  recall 
all  the  events  he  knows.  To  my  mind,  the  careful 
study  of  his  method  of  narration  throws  more 
light  on  the  divergences  of  his  exposition."  * 

Had  we  two  narratives  agreeing  point  by  point, 
some  would  not  be  slow  to  affirm  that  their  testi- 
mony is  after  all  but  one,  since  they  depend'  on 
each  other,  either  because  they  quote  each  other, 
or  because  they  use  each  other's  materials.  But 
they  do  differ!  Does  this  give  us  the  right  imme- 
diately to  denounce  error,  even  before  we  study 
closely  into  the  details? 

There  is  noticeable  in  many  critics,  even  among 
those  who  do  not  deny  a  priori  the  philosophical 
possibility  of  the  supernatural,  a  decided  tendency 
to  take  up  the  study  of  Biblical  texts  with  a  kind 
of  distrust,  and  to  be  more  exacting  for  them 
than  for  the  texts  of  profane  authors.     If  that 


*  Evangile  selon  Saint  Luc,  p.  28. 


256         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

wariness  is  only  requiring  proofs  before  acknowl- 
edging the  existence  of  a  miracle,  it  deserves  to  be 
praised  on  condition,  however,  that  one  does  not 
require  a  process  of  arguing  not  adapted  to  the 
special  nature  of  the  subject,  and  that  one  bears 
in  mind  that,  after  all.  Holy  Writ  will  always 
remain  a  book  of  its  own  kind.  Although  sub- 
ject to  the  rational  laws  of  criticism,  the  close 
study  of  supernatural  facts — a  study  which  must 
come  as  a  most  important  element  in  the  solution 
of  the  religious  problem — that  study,  I  say,  finds 
either  opposition  or  help  on  the  part  of  the  ob- 
server's intimate  dispositions — dispositions  which 
do  not  belong  exclusively  to  the  realm  of  the  his- 
torical method. 

Besides,  the  foregoing  remark  finds  still  more 
its  application,  when  we  have  to  appreciate  the 
facts  or  to  examine  critically  the  document  that 
relates  them.  After  all,  it  is  in  the  mysterious 
depths  of  the  human  soul  that  the  conflict  between 
dogma  and  history  receives  its  solution. 

In  this  connection,  the  following  page  of  Father 
de  Grandmaison  seems  most  appropriate :  "The 
dogma  of  the  Virgin-Birth  is  a  part  of  a  doc- 
trinal system  which  goes  beyond  it  and  thus  sanc- 
tions it,  and  the  acceptance  of  that  system  depends 
on  the  attitude  one  adopts  regarding  Jesus  and 


Positive  Trustworthiness  of  the  Texts.    257 

His  Church.  If  the  Savior's  history,  studied 
with  all  fair-mindedness,  if  the  infinite  fecundity 
of  His  work  still  living  in  the  midst  of  men,  leads 
us  to  look  upon  Him  as  the  Messenger  and  the 
Son  of  God,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church  alone  is  seen  to  be  capable  of  interpreting 
the  words  of  life  and  opening  up  the  ways  of 
salvation,  then  indeed  we  feel  no  need  to  discuss, 
with  a  captious  subtlety,  the  various  details,  nor  to 
restore,  whilst  groping  about,  as  it  were,  a  more 
or  less  coherent  symbol ;  no  longer  is  our  faith  at 
the  mercy  of  researches  that  can  be  taken  up  only 
by  a  few  select  individuals. 

Moreover,  minute  researches  about  the  origin, 
preservation  and  historical  bearing  of  the  docu- 
ments, will  be  most  useful,  provided  they  are 
carried  on  with  fairness  and  method.  It  is  un- 
worthy of  a  genuine  scholar  to  start  those  re- 


*  Etudes,  May  20,  1907,  p.  526.  According  to  St.  Thomas, 
the  miracle  of  the  Virgin-Birth,  far  from  being  given  us 
as  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity,  is  rather  a  mys- 
terious object  of  our  faith:  "Sciendum  quod  miraculorum 
Dei  qusedam  sunt,  de  quibus  est  fides :  sicut  miraculum 
virginei  partus  et  resurrectionis  Domini,  et  etiam  Sacra- 
menti  Altaris;  et  ideo  Dominus  voluit  ista  occultiora  esse, 
ut  fides  eorum  magis  meritoria  esset;  quaedam  vero 
miracula  sunt  ad  fidei  comprobationem :  et  ista  debent  esse 
manifesta."    Summa  Theol,  iii  pars,  q.  29,  a.  i,  ad  2. 


258         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

searches  with  the  set  purpose  to  turn  against  the 
historical  value  of  the  Gospel  any  circumstances 
at  all,  even  the  most  insignificant.  This  is  not  a 
suggestion  dictated  merely  by  our  Christian  con- 
victions :  some  critics,  who  are  far  from  over- 
scrupulous in  maintaining  the  inerrancy  of  Holy 
Writ,  loudly  and  emphatically  protest  against  the 
exceptional  way  with  which  the  sacred  historians 
have  been  treated.  In  the  book  of  Acts  (5  ^®) 
there  is  found  a  statement  that  seems  incompatible 
with  the  narrative  made  by  Josephus.  At  once,  St. 
Luke  is  declared  to  be  in  the  wrong.  But  why 
not  Flavins  Josephus?  .  .  .  asks  Harnack.* 
The  same  remark  might  be  applied  to  many  other 
cases. 

In  Biblical  criticism,  even  more  so  than  in  other 
departments  of  knowledge,  any  explanation  that 
does  not  rest  on  an  accurate  and  impartial  analysis 
of  the  texts  raises  many  more  difficulties  than  it 
answers ;  it  is  doomed  sooner  or  later  to  disappear. 


*  Luke   the  Physician    (English  transl.)    p.   123,  note   I. 


THE  LORD'S  BRETHREN.* 

The  question  of  the  "Lord's  Brethren"  is  sus- 
ceptible of  no  new  solution,  and  all  that  could 
have  been  written  on  the  subject  has  been  actually 
written.  It  remains  for  scholars  only  to  state 
with  accuracy  in  what  measure  these  explana- 
tions square  with  the  texts.  Now,  this  is  far 
from  being  an  easy  task :  both  from  the  num- 
ber and  from  the  character  of  its  data,  the 
problem  is  one  of  the  most  complex  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  owing  to  that  complexity 
itself,  any  one  who  gives  his  preference  to  this 
or  that  solution  may  easily  allow  himself  either 
to  be  deceived  or  to  deceive.  H  we  take  into 
account  only  one  part  of  the  elements  of  the 
dispute,  and  lose  sight  of  the  language  of  our 
Gospels,  and  of  the  customs  and  belief  of  the 
circles  where  they  were  written,  we  may  easily 
do  away  with  the  difficulty  arising  from  the  ex- 
pression, "the  Brethren  of  the  Lord";  it  suffices 
to  say  that  Jesus  was  not  the  only  son  of  His 
mother ;  but  that  brief  solution  which  recommends 
itself  by  its  simplicity  is  merely  a  deception,  nay 
a  snare ;  for  we  may  come  soon  to  realize  that 


*  This  essay  was  first  published  in  the  Revue  Biblique, 
January,  1908. 


26o  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

instead  of  one  real,  though  not  unsurmountable 
difficulty,  several  other  difficulties  have  been 
raised  which,  taken  all  together,  make  on  the 
mind  a  far  more  decisive  impression. 

In  order  to  treat  this  question  v^ith  some  order, 
w^e  divide  it  into  three  parts :  Firstly,  the  facts ; 
secondly,  the  explanations  given  of  those  facts; 
thirdly,  criticism  and  conclusion. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  FACTS. 

The  four  Evangelists,  the  author  of  the  Acts 
and  St.  Paul  speak  of  the  "Brethren  of  the 
Lord."  *  According  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark, 
they  are  named  James,  Joseph,  Simeon  and  Jude. 
In  the  same  passage  mention  is  made  of  the  sisters 
of  Jesus,  who  dwelt  in  Nazareth,  f    The  first  three 

*  Matthew  12  *^,  13  ^s ;  Mark  3  3^,  6  ^ ;  Luke  8  20 ;  John 
2 12^  75 J  ^cts  i";  //  Cor.  9^. 

t  Matthew  13  ^^ ;  Mark  6  ^,  whose  testimony  regarding 
James  is  confirmed  by  that  of  St.  Paul,  Galat.,  1 1».  The 
Greeks  at  times  translated  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  name 
Joseph  into  the  softer  form  iioo-^s,  'luo-^rbi  (Mark  6^ 
1^40,47)^  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing,  in  a  critical  edi- 
tion, Matthew  13  ^^  with  27  ^^.  Lightfoot,  Epistle  to  the 
Gal.  (Dissert.  II,  The  Brethren  of  the  Lord)  p.  268,  calls 
in  question — ^wrongly,  I  think — the  identity  of  the  two  names 
(■iai<r^<<>  and  'iwo-ijs).  Cf.  Dalman,  Grammat.  arani.,  p.  175; 
Allen,  Comment,  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew, 
pp.  156,  299. 


The  Facts.  261 

Evangelists  reckon  among  the  pious  women  who 
followed  Jesus  and  stood  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross, 
Mary  the  mother  of  James,  who,  according  to  the 
still  more  explicit  statement  of  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke,  was  the  mother  of  James  the  Less  and 
of  Joseph.*  On  the  other  hand,  St.  John  writes 
of  that  same  Mary,  that  she  was  the  sister  of  the 
mother  of  Jesus;  then,  in  order  to  designate  her 
with  still  more  precision,  he  adds  ^  mu  KXwTza, 
"that  of  Clopas."  f 

♦Matthew  27^6;  Mark  15**';  Luke  241°.  We  re- 
serve here  the  adjective,  Less,  without  pretending  to  define 
its  import;  the  text  of  St.  Mark  reads  toO 'laKw/SouToujxiKpoC, 
which  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  comparison  with  another 
James.  That  James  may  have  been  called  the  Short,  on 
account  of  his  small  height. 

tJoHN  1925.  The  identity  of  Mary  of  Clopas  with  the 
woman  the  Evangelist  calls  the  sister  of  Jesus'  mother — 
whatever  may  be  the  true  import  of  the  word  k^tXi^r,— 
seems  to  be  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  In  fact,  this  is  the 
view  most  generally  held.  Cf.  Th.  Calmes,  L'Evangile 
selon  S.  Jean,  1904,  p.  440;  Loisy,  Le  Quatrieme  Evangile, 
Too.^,  p.  877 ;  C.  Harris,  in  the  Diction,  of  Christ  and  the 
Gospels,  Vol.  I,  1906,  p.  234.  In  order  to  exclude  the  hy- 
pothesis of  a  strictly  so-called  sister  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
(a  hypothesis  which  is  not  necessary)  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  two  sisters  could  not  have  had  the  same  name. 
Cf.  LiGHTFOOT,  op.  cit,  p.  264.  That  is  no  conclusive  rea- 
son :  among  the  children  of  Herod  the  Great,  two  bear  the 
name  of  Philip.  At  Rome,  Octavia,  the  sister  of  the  Em- 
peror Augustus,  had  four  daughters,  two  of  whom  were 
named  Marcella  and  two,  Antonia. 


262  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

The  brethren  of  the  Lord  did  not  believe  in 
Him  during  His  public  life;  *  however,  after  the 
Resurrection  they  are  reckoned  among  His  dis- 
ciples, f  Nevertheless,  when  the  Evangelists  give 
a  list  of  the  Apostles,  they  always  place  together 
those  names  which  rightly  or  wrongly  have 
seemed  to  be  those  of  the  Lord's  brethren :  James 
of  Alpheus,  Jude  of  James  and  Simeon  the  Ca- 
nansean  or  Zelotes.  In  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark,  instead  of  Jude,  we  find  Lebbseus  or  Thad- 
daeus.J  In  fine,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  one 
of  the  Catholic  Epistles  claims  to  be  the  work 
of  Jude,  the  brother  of  James.  § 

To  those  data  of  the  canonical  writings,  we 
must  add  what  is  said  by  Josephus  and  by  Hege- 
sippus. 

Josephus  relates  that,  toward  the  year  62,  there 
was  put  to  death  "J^^nes,  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
who  was  called  Christ."  ||     Eusebius,  who  was 


♦  John  7  ' ;  Mark  3  21 ;  cf.  6  *. 

^  Acts  I  1*;  /  Cor.  95. 

X Matthew  10^'*;  Mark  3  i^ ;  Luke  6 1^.  le ;  Acts  i  ^'. 

§  Jude  1 1. 

II  Ant.  Jud.,  XX,  ix,  i.  It  goes  without  saying  that  the 
authenticity  and  integrity  of  this  passage,  as  well  as  of  two 
other  passages  of  the  same  author  bearing  on  Christ  and  on 
the  beginnings  of  Christianity,  have  been  disputed. 


The  Facts.  263 

acquainted  with  the  passage  of  Josephus,  appeals 
for  a  confirmation  of  the  same  fact  to  two  other 
documents :  the  Recognitioncs  Clementina:  and  the 
histor}-  of  Hegesippus.  From  the  details  of  their 
narration,  one  sees  that  these  last  two  witnesses 
do  not  exclusively  depend  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Jewish  historian.* 

Toward  the  year  160,  Hegesippus  gathered  on 
the  spot  the  Palestinian  traditions  regarding  the 
Lord's  brethren :  he  probably  conversed  with  their 
descendants.  Julius  Africanus  affirms  he  met 
some  of  them  fifty  years  later. f  Now,  we  may 
sum  up  as  follows  the  details  given  by  Hegesip- 
pus, as  preserv'ed  by  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical 
History. 

James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  named  the  Just, 
took  up,  with  the  Apostles,  the  government  of  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  (ii,  23).  "After  James  the 
Just  had  suffered  martyrdom,  as  the  Lord  had 
also  on  the  same  account,  the  son  of  His  paternal 
uncle,  Simeon,  the  son  of  Clopas,  was  appointed 
bishop  (of  Jerusalem)  ;  all  preferred  him  as  next 
bishop,    because   he   was   another   cousin   of   the 


*  EusEB.,  H.  E.,  ii,  23. 
t  EusEB.,  H.  E.,  i,  7. 

19 


264  The  Lord's  Brethren. 


Lord"  *  (iv,  22).    That  same  Simeon  was  cruci- 


Mera  to  iJiapTvprj<Tai  'laK(o/3ov  Tov  Sixaiov  tuy  xal  6  Kuptos  eiri  TW  auTCf 
Aoyo),  jraXii'  6  6k  toC  Beiov  aiiTov  'Xv/xeiav  6  Toi)  KAuTra  Ka9t<rTaTai  «7ri(rKOiros, 
Of  irpoeflej'TO  jraires  ovTa  dvei^ibi'  toO  Kvpiov  SevTfpov.  AnOthcr  transla- 
tion has  been  suggested.  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.,  p.  276,  translates 
as  follows :  "After  the  martyrdom  of  James  the  Just  on  the 
same  charge  as  the  Lord,  his  paternal  uncle's  child  Symeon, 
the  son  of  Clopas,  is  next  made  bishop  (of  Jerusalem),  who 
was  put  forward  by  all  as  the  second  (bishop)  in  succes- 
sion, being  cousin  of  the  Lord."  That  text  is  so  important 
that  we  feel  the  need  to  justify  the  wording  of  our  trans- 
lation, (a)  The  adverb  niXiv  which  is  here  put  into  promi- 
nence, cannot  emphasize  the  insignificant  fact  that  James 
was  given  a  successor,  whilst  it  brings  out  appropriately 
this  remarkable  circumstance,  that  the  second  bishop  of 
Jerusalem  was,  like  the  first,  a  cousin  of  the  Lord,     (b) 

In  the  construction  ov  wpoeSevro  Trai/res  ovTa  a.ve\liiov  tou  Kvpiov  SevTtpov 

the  word  Stvrepov  refers  to  ai'ci^ibi'  rather  than  to  eTn'o-Kon-os: 
an  interpretation  which  seems  necessary  when  one  bears 
in   mind   that   the  verb  TrpoTiflij/m  is  not   synonymous   with 

irpoi<rTT|fi.i,  »cafli(TTr)M'.  e/cAeyco  Or  xeipoToveio  (^tO  estobltsh,  tO  Consti- 
tute, to  set,  to  command),  but  signifies  to  prefer.  Now  the 
reason  why  Simeon  was  preferred  to  any  one  else,  was  that 
another  cousin  of  the  Lord  might  thus  occupy  the  see  of 
Jerusalem,  (c)  When  connecting  ovtoO  with  Kvpi'ov,  not  to 
'i(ucei/3ov,  we  merely  follow  the  general  cadence  of  the 
phrase;  yet,  strictly  speaking,  Simeon  might  be  the  son 
of  lames'  paternal  uncle,  and  still  remain  the  cousin  of 
the  Lord.  Later  on  we  shall  speak  of  the  sentiment  of 
those  who  look  upon  Mary,  the  mother  of  James,  as  sister 
both  of  Clopas,  the  father  of  Simeon,  and  of  Joseph,  the 
foster-father  of  Jesus.    That  Clopas  was  the  brother  of 


The  Explanations.  265 

fied  under  Trajan  (98-117),  at  the  age  of  one 
hundred  and  fourteen.  From  his  advanced  age, 
Eusebius  infers  that  he  may  have  seen  and  heard 
the  Lord ;  the  more  so,  he  adds,  that  the  Gospel 
mentions  a  certain  Mary,  (wife)  of  Cleophas 
(=  Clopas),  of  whom  Simeon  was  born.  There 
were  still  living  at  the  same  epoch,  other  relatives 
of  the  Lord,  for  instance,  the  grandsons  of  Jude, 
"who  is  said  to  have  been  the  Lord's  brother  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh"  (iii,  32;  cf.  11,  20).  Once 
already  under  the  rule  of  Domitian  (81-96),  they 
had  been  taken  before  the  imperial  tribunal,  as 
descendants  of  David  and  relatives  of  Christ ;  but 
the  Emperor  had  bidden  they  should  be  released, 
for  he  thought  that  those  peasants  could  in  no 
way  endanger  his  authority  in  Judaea  (iii,  20).* 

To  the  texts  of  Josephus  and  Hegesippus,  some 
authors  added  unhesitatingly  a  fragment  ascribed 

Joseph,  is  affirmed  by  Eusebius,  on  the  testimony  of  Hege- 
sippus.    (Ill,  11;  cf.  2)2.) 

It  follows  that,  for  Hegesippus  and  consequently  for 
Eusebius,  the  term  a&i\<i>6<;  is  here  equivalent  to  <iv£i/(id«, 
and  that  the  relationship  of  James  to  the  Lord  does  not 
essentially  differ  from  that  of  Simeon. 

*0f  the  four  personages  called  in  the  New  Testament 
"Brethren  of  the  Lord,"  Joseph  is  the  only  one  not  referred 
to  in  the  tradition  of  the  2d  century,  perhaps  because  he 
died  at  an  early  age. 


266  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

to  Papias  of  Hierapolis ;  *  but  now  that  document 
is  generally  declared  inauthentic* 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  EXPLANATIONS. 

I.  At  the  beginning,  the  appellation  "Brethren 
of  the  Lord"  must  have  been  understood  by  all. 
Until  about  the  end  of  the  2d  century,  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  divergence,  still  less  of  any  discussion 
on  this  topic. 

The  earliest  explanation  of  the  term  is  found  in 
Hegesippus,  who,  besides,  does  not  pretend  to 
solve  a  difficulty,  but  merely  to  state  what  all 
knew.  Simeon  was  chosen  to  succeed  James  in 
the  see  of  Jerusalem  because  he  had  the  privilege 
of  being  another  cousin  of  the  Lord ;  now  James 
is  commonly  called  by  Hegesippus  the  brother  of 
the  Lord:  which  shows  that  under  his  pen,  the 


*  Cf.  No.  2397  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Bodleian  Library 
at  Oxford;  given  in  Migne,  P.  G.,  v,  1261-1262. 

*  Its  authenticity,  accepted  by  Mill,  The  Accounts  of 
O.  Lord's  Brethren  in  the  N.  T.,  p.  238,  is  deemed  very 
doubtful  by  Corluy,  Les  Freres  du  Seigneur,  in  the  Etudes, 
1878,  Vol.  I,  p.  15.  After  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.,  p.  273, 
ViGOUROUx,  Les  Livres  saints  et  la  Critique  rationaliste, 
Vol.  IV  (1891),  p.  497,  sees  in  it  the  work  of  a  gram- 
marian, named  Papias,  who  lived  in  the  nth  century. 


The  Explanations.  267 

two  expressions  are  equivalent.*  Besides,  he  tells 
us  that  Simeon  was  the  cousin  of  Jesus  through 
his  father,  Clopas. 

From  the  tenor  of  the  texts,  as  well  as  from 
the  way  in  which  they  are  made  use  of  by  Euse- 
bius,  it  is  evident  that,  for  the  Palestinian  chron- 
icler, James  and  Simeon  are  identical  with  the  per- 
sonages of  the  same  name,  reckoned  in  the  Gospel 
among  the  brethren  of  the  Lord.  Were  they,  in 
his  mind,  two  brothers  instead  of  cousins?  The 
few  and  scanty  fragments  of  Hegesippus  that 
have  come  down  to  us,  do  not  enable  us  to  give 
to  this  question  a  positive  answer.  Certain  it  is, 
though,  that  he  never  calls  Simeon  "brother  of 
James." 

The  same  writer  says  also  of  Jude:  "He  who 
is  said  to  have  been  the  Lord's  brother  according 
to  the  flesh."  f     Had  Jude  been  the  brother  of 

*  This  conclusion  is  important.  Hence  attempts  have 
been  made  to  explain  in  various  ways  the  testimony  of 
Hegesippus,  as  may  be  seen  from  LightfooTj  op.  cit.,  p. 
278;  C.  Harris,  in  Diction,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  Vol. 
I,  P-  234;  J.  B.  Mayor,  in  Diction,  of  the  Bible  (Hastings), 
Vol.  I,  p.  320 ;  Renan,  The  Gospels,  pp.  27,  28,  277,  ff. ; 
CoRLUY,  in  Etudes  Religieuses,  1878,  Vol.  I,  p.  22. 

TToC  Kara  <rdpKa  Xeyonevov    avToC  aSeK4>ov,  H.    E.,    HI,    20.       Likc- 

wise  we  read  in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  xi,  35,  in  con- 
nection with  James  :  6  KexBeXi  <i5eA</.bs  ToC  KvpCov.  Jesus  has  a 
father,  He  has  "brothers,"  but  in  a  very  special  sense : 
this  is  why  the  current  appellation  needs  explanation. 


268  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Jesus  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  why  remark 
that  he  was  called  His  brother f  That  was  self- 
evident.  Perhaps  some  one  may  say  that  of  all 
the  "brothers"  of  the  Lord,  Jude  was  the  most 
prominent,  and  that,  on  this  account,  he  was  called 
antonomastically  d8eXfd<i  too  xopiou  ?  That  hypothe- 
sis cannot  be  held  for  the  following  reason :  All 
know  that  the  "brother  of  the  Lord"  by  way  of 
eminence,  was  James,  the  first  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem; so  much  so  that  at  the  beginning  of  his 
letter  Jude  himself  assumes  merely  the  title  of 
"brother  of  James."  As  to  the  qualifying  words 
xara  ffdpxa,  according  to  the  flesh,  they  mean  quite 
enough,  even  if  their  only  purpose  is  to  empha- 
size the  fact  that,  unlike  the  Apostles  and  Dis- 
ciples, Jude  was  not  the  brother  of  Jesus  accord- 
ing to  the  spirit  only. 

In  those  primitive  ages,  the  appellation  "breth- 
ren of  the  Lord"  may  not  have  been  so  much  a 
title  of  honor  as  an  easy  means  to  distinguish 
from  one  another  the  many  important  personages 
of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  who  bore  the  same 
name:  according  to  some  authors,  there  were 
four,  perhaps  five,  Jameses. 

The  Gospel  of  James  and  the  Gospel  of  Peter, 
which  are  apocryphal  works  of  the  end  of  the 
2d  century,  look  upon  the  brethren  of  the  Lord 


The  Explanations.  269 

as  children  born  to  St.  Joseph  of  a  first  mar- 
riage, before  he  became  the  husband  of  Mary.* 
Whilst  according  to  Hegesippus  they  were  the 
paternal  cousins  of  Jesus,  according  to  these  docu- 
ments they  were  His  half -brothers,  f 

2.  At  the  threshold  of  the  3d  century,  we  find 
Tertullian.  Did  he  hold  that  the  brethren  of  the 
Lord  were  born  of  Mary,  mother  of  Jesus?  Hel- 
vidius  and  St.  Jerome  believed  he  did,|  whilst 
this  is  questioned  by  some  modern  scholars,  such 
as  J.  B.  Lightfoot,  for  instance.  § 

In  the  passages  where  the  great  polemic  takes 
up  the  subject  incidentally,  he  is  arguing  against 
the  doctrines  of  the  Marcionists,  who  misused  the 
words  of  Christ  recorded  in  the  Gospels :  "Who  is 
my  mother,  and  who  are  my  brothers?"  ||     In 


*  Evang.  Jacohi,  ix,  xvii,  xv ;  cf.  Pseudo-Matt.,  xxxii ; 
Evangel.  Nativ.  Maria,  viii ;  Historia  Josephi,  xxxv.  As 
to  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  cf.  Origen,  In  Matt.,  xiii,  55. 

t  According  to  St.  Jerome,  Coiiunciit.  in  Matt.,  xii,  49-50, 
the  Apocryphals  gave  to  Joseph's  first  wife  the  name  of 
Melcha  or  Escha :  she  was — so  they  say — the  daughter  of 
Ancheus,  brother  of  Zachary,  John  the  Baptist's  father. 

t  Contra  Hclvid.,  17. — Father  d'Ales,  La  Thelogie  de 
Tertullien,  1905,  pp.  196-197,  seems  to  adopt  St.  Jerome's 
view. 

§  Op.  cit.,  p.  278. 

\\De  Virginibus  velandis,  vi ;  Adv.  Marc,  iv,  19;  De 
Came  Christi,  vii,  xxiii ;  De  Monogamia,  viii. 


270  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

order  to  prove  the  reality  of  the  human  nature 
in  Jesus,  TertulHan  insists  on  Mary's  maternity. 
Jesus  is  a  man  just  as  really  as  we  are :  He  has  a 
mother,  who  gave  Him  her  own  flesh,  the  Law 
gives  Him  a  father  in  the  person  of  St.  Joseph,* 
the  Gospel  speaks  of  His  "fratres."  The  Virgin 
conceived  Jesus,  it  is  true,  when  she  was  only  "be- 
trothed"— this  is  Tertullian's  view — ;  but  the 
Law  puts  on  the  same  level  the  betrothed  maiden 
and  the  wife.  And  thus,  after  bringing  forth  the 
Word  of  God,  Mary  was  to  become  really  the 
"wife"  of  Joseph,  semel  nuptura  post  partum. 
Why  should  we  not  take  in  the  same  sense  this 
expression,  the  strongest  TertulHan  ever  used  as 
regards  Mary :  virum  passamf  The  Virgin  bore 
the  yoke  of  man,  since  by  the  law  of  marriage  she 
was  subject  to  Joseph.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
that  we  have  to  deal  with  a  lawyer,  for  whom 
legal  realities  carry  a  great  deal  of  weight. 

These  considerations  are  not  to  be  overlooked; 
however,  they  can  hardly  stand  before  the  fact, 
that,  toward  the  middle  of  the  3d  century,  Origen, 
in  a  passage  soon  to  be  quoted,  apparently  ranged 
TertulHan  among  the  opponents  of  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity. 


*  TertulHan  holds  the  virginal  conception  of  Jesus. 


The  Explanations.  271 


It  seems  as  though  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(+215)  wished  to  combine  the  view  of  Hel- 
vidius  with  that  of  the  apocryphal  Gospels.  In  a 
passage  of  the  Hypoty poses,  quoted  by  Eusebius 
(H.  E.,  ii,  i),  he  apparently  identifies  James,  the 
brother  of  the  Lord,  with  the  Apostle  of  the  same 
name,  James,  son  of  Alpheus.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  a  fragment  which  originally  belonged  probably 
to  the  Latin  translation  made  at  the  suggestion  of 
Cassiodorus,  he  looks  upon  Jude,  the  author  of 
the  Catholic  Epistle,  both  as  the  brother  of  James 
and  as  one  of  the  sons  of  Joseph.*  The  contra- 
diction may  be  here  only  on  the  surface.  The 
brethren  of  Jesus  are  called  the  sons  of  Joseph. 
On  what  ground?  It  is  neither  impossible  nor 
improbable  that,  in  the  eyes  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, they  were  only  his  nephews,  entrusted  to 
his  care  by  their  dying  father — either  Clopas,  his 
brother,  or  Alpheus,  his  brother-in-law.     This  is 


*The  fragment  is  given  in  Migne,  P.  G.,  ix,  731-734- 
"Jude,  who  wrote  the  Catholic  Epistle,  was  one  of  Joseph's 
sons  and  the  Lord's  brother,  a  man  of  deep  piety;  although 
conscious  of  his  relationship  with  the  Savior,  he  does  not 
say  that  he  was  His  brother;  but  what  does  he  say?  Jude, 
the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  He  was  his  Lord,  and 
brother  of  James.  This  also  is  true,  he  was  James'  brother, 
since  he  was  the  (son)  of  Joseph."  Cf.  Cassiodorus,  De 
Instit.  Div.  Lit.,  8. 


272  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

a  mere  supposition;  but  it  may  be  we  must  have 
recourse  to  it,  instead  of  charging  with  incon- 
sistency one  who  could  so  easily  have  all  the  pos- 
sible inforniation  about  the  historical  tradition 
of  the  2d  century,  concerning  the  brethren  of  the 
Lord. 

Origen  (-f  254)  is  conversant  with  the  fact 
that  some  one  whose  name  he  does  not  know,  or 
prefers  not  to  mention,  has  been  so  foolish 
as  to  say  that,  after  the  birth  of  Jesus,  Mary 
had  from  Joseph  other  children :  and  that  on  this 
account,  Jesus  publicly  disowned  her  as  His 
mother  (Mark  3^^"^*).  That  is  a  heresy,  he  adds, 
which  is  most  plainly  refuted  by  the  text  of  Holy 
Writ.*     Who  is   the   personage   thus   aimed   at 


*  The  passage  is  known  to  us  only  through  St.  Jerome's 
translation :  "Debemus  in  hoc  loco,  ne  simplices  quique 
decipiantur,  ea  quae  solent  opponere  hseretici,  confutare. 
In  tantam  quippe  nescio  quis  prorupit  insaniam,  ut  assereret 
negatam  fuisse  Mariam  a  Salvatore,  eo  quod  post  nativi- 
tatem  illius  juncta  fuerit  Joseph;  et  locutus  est,  quae  quali 
mente  dixerit,  ipse  noverit  qui  locutus  est.  Si  quando 
igitur  haeretici  vobis  tale  quid  objecerint,  respondete  eis 
et  dicite :  Certe  Spiritu  Sancto  plena  Elisabeth  ait :  Bene- 
dicta  tu  inter  mulieres.  Si  Sancto  Spiritu  benedicta  canitur 
Maria,  quomodo  earn  Salvator  negavit?  Porro  quod  as- 
serunt  earn  nupsisse  post  partum,  unde  approbent  non 
habent.  Hi  enim  filii  qui  Joseph  dicebantur,  non  erant 
orti   de   Maria,   neque   est   ulla    Scriptura   quae   ista   com- 


The  Explanations.  273 

by  the  great  Alexandrian  interpreter?  Naturally 
we  think  of  Tertullian.  Of  all  those  predecessors 
of  Origen,  whose  works  have  come  down  to  us, 
he  alone  is  open  to  suspicion  on  that  point.  More- 
over, it  is  to  be  observed  that  Helvidius  and  St. 
Jerome  knew,  for  the  same  period,  of  no  other 
opponent  of  Mary's  perpetual  virginity.  To  this 
one  fact  must  be  added  that  twice  Tertullian 
writes  that  Jesus  publicly  disowned  His  mother 
and  His  fratres  owing  to  their  unbelieving  spirit.* 
Besides,  Origen  unmistakably  favors  the  ex- 
planation we  read  in  the  Apocryphals  of  James 
and  of  Peter: — the  brethren  of  the  Lord  are  the 
children  of  St.  Joseph. f 

memorat."  Homil.  vii  in  Lucam,  in  medio.  Migne,  P.  G., 
xiii,  1818;  cf.  Contra  Celsum,  i,  47.  One  phrase  of  Abbe 
Lesetre,  in  the  Revue  du  Clerge  frangais,  July  15,  1907, 
p.  117,  might  suggest  that  Origen  must  be  reckoned  among 
the  opponents  of  Mary's  virginity  post  partum.  But 
the  same  author  tells  us,  a  few  pages  after,  p.  129, 
that  Origen  must  be  looked  upon  as  one  of  those  "who 
held  most  strongly  the  doctrine  of  Mary's  virginity."  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  text  which  first  was  alluded  to,  con- 
cerns the  virginity  in  partu.  Cf.  Horn,  xiv  in  Lucam; 
MiGNE,  P.  G.,  xiii,  1834.  Understood  from  a  merely 
juridical  point  of  view,  Origen's  statement  seems  to  be, 
in  this  place,  susceptible  of  orthodox  meaning. 

*  De  Came  Christi,  vii ;  Contra  Marc.,  iv,  19. 

t  In  Matt.,  xiii,  55 ;  In  Luc,  Horn,  vii,  in  med. ;  In  Joan., 
Vol.  I,  6;  II,  12,  in  the  Catena  Corderii. 


274  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Likewise  St.  Hilary  (about  355)  knows  of  ir- 
religious and  presumptuous  men,  out  of  all  sym- 
pathy with  the  spiritual  view,  who  think  and  speak 
of  Mary  in  a  wrong  and  unbecoming  manner,  and 
assume  that  they  are  justified  by  what  is  written 
regarding  the  fratres  of  the  Lord.  The  per- 
sonages in  question  were  not  born  of  Mary, 
rather  they  are  children  Joseph  had  from  a  pre- 
vious marriage."  * 

3,  It  was  toward  the  end  of  the  4th  century 
that  started  the  first  controversy  regarding  Mary's 
perpetual  virginity :  that  controversy  was  con- 
nected with  a  very  widespread  movement  which 
then  carried  Christendom  toward  monachism. 
Virginity  was  extolled,  of  course,  above  the  state 
of  matrimony.  Many  fondly  recalled  that  Jesus 
and  Mary  had  been  the  first  to  raise  in  the  world 
the  standard  of  Virgins. f  That  in  this  chorus 
of  praises  there  was  some  exaggeration  is  quite 
probable.  At  times  St.  Jerome  himself  did  not 
keep  within  proper  bounds  :  for  this  his  opponents 


*  Comment,  in  Matth.,  i,  3-4. 

t  "I  think  it  in  harmony  with  reason  that  Jesus  was 
the  premices  among  men  of  the  purity  which  consists  in 
chastity,  and  Mary  among  women ;  for  it  were  not  pious 
to  ascribe  to  any  other  than  to  them  (or :  to  her)  the 
premices  of  virginity."  Origen,  In  Matth.;  Migne,  P.  G., 
Vol.  X,  17. 


The  Explanations.  275 

reproached  him,  and  his  friends  had  to  admit  that, 
in  his  defence  of  virginity  against  Jovinian,  there 
were  erroneous  and  misleading  expressions:  in 
their  eyes  he  lowered  marriage  altogether  too 
much.* 

At  all  events,  a  reaction  soon  set  in.  It  was  by 
appealing  to  Holy  Writ  that  the  opponents  of 
monachism  strove,  this  time,  to  extol  marriage. 
Is  not  Mary  described  in  it  as  the  honest  mother 
of  a  family?  After  the  Virgin-Birth  of  her  First- 
born she  had  from  Joseph  other  children,  those 
called  in  the  Gospel,  the  "fratres"  of  the  Lord. 

The  cradle  of  that  doctrinal  campaign  seems  to 
have  been  Laodicasa  in  Syria:  St.  Epiphanius 
tells  us  that,  in  his  time,  that  view  was  ascribed 
to  Apollinaris  (-j-  390)  ;  at  least  it  was  put  forth 
by  some  of  his  disciples. f  Thence  it  passed  prob- 
ably to  Arabia  and  spread  among  the  Antidi- 
comarianites,  who  not  only  opposed  the  exces- 
sive view  of  the  Collyridians,  but  fell  into  an 
opposite    error. I     Whilst    Epiphanius    was    en- 


*  Cf.  Epist.  Hieron.  ad  Pammachium,  xlviii,  xlix ;  ad 
Domnionem,  1. 

t  Adv.  Hceres.,  Ixxviii,  i. 

I  In  the  treatise  of  St.  Epiphanius,  Adv.  Hceres.,  the  78th 
heresy  is  that  of  the  Antidicomarianites ;  the  following 
chapter  (79)  refers  to  the  heresy  of  the  Collyridians  who 
went  evidently  too  far  in  the  honors  they  paid  to  Mary. 


276         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

gaged  in  refuting  them,  their  ideas  were  making 
their  appearance  in  Rome.  In  380,  an  obscure 
and  untalented  man,  Helvidius,  published  there  a 
pamphlet,  in  which  he  plainly  denied  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity.  The  book  caused  scandal,  and 
St.  Jerome,  then  in  Rome,  was  asked  to  refute  it. 
This  task  he  took  up,  about  the  year  383,  in  his 
treatise  De  perpetua  Virginitate  MaricE,  adversus 
Helvidium* 

But  this  was  not  a  decisive  blow.  A  few  years 
later,  a  Roman  monk,  Jovinian,  resumed  the  thesis 
of  Helvidius.  As  soon  as  he  heard  of  it,  St. 
Jerome  sent  from  Bethlehem  another  refutation, 
in  which  he  merely  defended  virginity  in  general 
from  the  attacks  directed  against  it,  deeming  that, 
as  to  Mary's  virginity,  he  had  exhausted  the  sub- 
ject in  his  preceding  treatise.f 

St.  Jerome  has  been  charged  with  having  in 
that  controversy  "disclosed  all  the  depths  of  irony 
and  bitter  sarcasm  with  which  his  soul  was  filled, 
and  with  having  replied  to  his  opponent  by  un- 


*  MiGNE,  P.  L.,  xxiii,  183-206.  Cf.  Grutzmacher,  Hiero- 
nymus,  i,  p.  269. 

■f  Ibid.,  211-388.  W.  Haller  has  gathered  in  one  volume 
all  the  texts  that  refer  to  Jovinian.  Cf.  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  new  series,  ii,  3. 


The  Explanations.  277 

seemly  jokes."  *  The  author  of  this  judgment, 
which  is  more  than  justly  severe,  forgets  the  char- 
acter of  the  literary  customs  of  those  times,  nor 
does  he  take  into  account  the  excuse  made  by  St. 
Jerome  himself  at  the  end  of  his  writing  against 
Helvidius.  "I  have  become  rhetorical,  and  have 
disported  myself  a  little  like  a  platform  orator. 
You  compelled  me,  Helvidius ;  for,  brightly  as  the 
Gospel  shines  at  the  present  day,  you  will  have  it 
that  equal  glory  attaches  to  virginity  and  to  the 
marriage  state."  f 

As  Jovinian  had  recruited  some  followers  in 
Northern  Italy,  St.  Ambrose  also  wrote  a  refuta- 
tion of  his  errors. J  Moreover,  soon  they  were 
officially  condemned  at  Milan  in  an  episcopal 
synod.  Pope  St.  Siricius  immediately  sanctioned 
the  sentence  and  put  Jovinian,  with  eight  of  his 
partisans  nominally  under  the  ban  of  excommuni- 
cation. §  The  following  year,  the  Council  of  Capua 


♦Hekzog,  in  the  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  LittSr.  relig.,  July- 
August,  1907;  pp.  325,  331. 

^  Adv.  Helvid.,  22. 

XDe  Institut.  Virg.,  written  toward  the  year  392;  the 
question  of  Mary's  perpetual  virginity  is  treated  in  chap- 
ters v-xv;  MiGNE,  P.  L.,  xvi,  313-328. 

§MiGNE,  P.  L.,  xvi,  1 123;  with  the  answer  of  the  Synod 
of  Milan  to  Pope  Siricius.    Ibid.,  1125. 


278         The  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

dealt  in  the  same  way  with  Bonosus,  bishop  of 
Sardica  in  Illyricum,  who  had  compromised  him- 
self by  professing  the  same  erroneous  views.  * 

4.  St.  Jerome's  treatise  against  Helvidius  has 
remained  the  storehouse  of  information  regarding 
Mary's  perpetual  virginity.  The  author  resumes 
the  arguments  of  Origen  and  of  St.  Epiphanius, 
and  adds  much  that  is  his  own.  His  opponents 
had  thought  they  could  shake  the  belief  of  the 
faithful  with  three  or  four  texts  of  the  Gospel. 
Jerome's  exegetical  learning  and  skill  enable  him 
to  silence  his  adversaries  in  the  name  of  the  Gospel 
itself.  The  work  is  worth  a  close  study :  its  mere 
analysis  will  show  that,  after  all,  little  has  since 
been  added  to  its  material. 

(a)  The  view  of  Helvidius  is  a  novelty,  an  im- 
piety, a  bold  denial  of  the  faith  of  the  whole 
world,  t  "Might  I  not  array  against  you  the 
whole  series  of  ancient  writers:  Ignatius,  Poly- 
carp,  Irenaeus,  Justin  Martyr,  and  many  other 
apostolic  and  eloquent  men,  who  against  Ebion, 
Theodotus  of  Byzantium,  and  Valentinus,  held 


*  Epist.  Siricii  ad  Anysium  de  causa  Bonosi,  after  the 
S6th  letter  of  St.  Ambrose,  Migne,  P.  L.,  xvi,  1172;  cf. 
Denzinger,  Enchiridion,  n.  1781  (new  edit.,  n.  91). 

t§§  1-14,  17-19,  22. 


The  Explanations.  279 

these  same  views  and  wrote  volumes  replete  with 
wisdom.  If  you  had  ever  read  what  they  wrote, 
you  would  be  a  wiser  man."  *  St.  Jerome  has 
been  blamed  for  appealing  wrongly  to  the  authors 
of  the  2d  century.  True,  the  controversy  in  which 
the  latter  were  engaged  referred  directly  to 
Christ's  Virgin-Birth,  but  the  reasons  they 
brought  forward  have  really  a  more  extensive 
bearing.  Thus,  for  instance,  they  commonly  call, 
without  any  hesitation,  Mary  the  Virgin:  an  un- 
qualified appellation  that  would  hardly  have  be- 
come the  mother  of  a  family,  even  were  she  a 
most  honorable  woman. 

At  an  early  date,  the  faith  in  the  perpetual  vir- 
ginity of  the  Mother  of  God  was  expressly  em- 
bodied in  the  epithet,  aecndpffsvoq,  semper  virgo. 
This  term  is  already  found  in  that  wording  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  which  was  proposed  at  Antioch 
to  those  who  would  apply  for  Baptism;  it  is  also 
found  in  the  exposition  by  St.  Athanasius,  of  the 
formula  of  faith  used  at  Alexandria.! 

Of  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  first 
four  centuries,  only  two  could  Helvidius  quote  in 


t  Kai    ytwrfOivTa    eic    Mapiaf  ttj?  ayia?  t^s   atinapOivov .     DeNZINGER, 

Enchirid.,  12;  cf.  10,  142,  143  (new  ed.,  nn.  12,  10,  201,  202). 

30 


28o  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

support  of  his  view :  Tertullian  and  Victorinus  of 
Pettau  (+about  303).  St.  Jerome  gives  up  Ter- 
tullian as  a  heretic  who  has  no  more  authority  on 
this  point  than  on  many  others.  As  to  Victorinus, 
"like  the  Evangelists,  he  spoke  of  the  brethren  of 
the  Lord,  not  of  the  sons  of  Mary."  *  On  the 
other  hand,  the  defender  of  Mary's  perpetual  vir- 
ginity might  have  appealed  to  the  explicit  testi- 
mony of  Origen  and  St.  Epiphanius,  The  former 
had  already  styled  heretics  those  who,  in  his  life, 
did  not  hold  on  this  point  the  common  sentiment 
of  the  faithful ;  the  latter  uses  the  terms  rashness, 
blasphemy,  unheard  of  madness,  unbearable  nov- 
elty.^ A  few  years  later  St.  Ambrose  will  charge 
with  sacrilege  the  attempt  made  by  Bonosus  to 
gain  credit  for  the  views  of  Helvidius.J 


*  "Et  de  Tertulliano  quidem  nihil  amplius  dico,  quam 
Ecclesise  hominem  non  fuisse.  De  Victorino  vero  id  assero 
quod  et  de  Evangelistis,  fratres  enin  dixisse  Domini,  non 
filios  Marise.  Fratres  autem  eo  sensu,  quern  superius  expo- 
suimus,  propinquitate,  non  natura"  (§17)-  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  all  the  passages  of  Tertullian  that  bear  on  the 
question  are  found  in  works  which  he  composed  after  he 
had  become  a  Montanist,  or  at  least  a  semi-Montanist. 

t  Origen,  Homil.  vii  in  Lucani,  in  med. ;  St.  Epiphan., 
Adv.  Hcer.,  Ixxviii,  1-7. 

%De  Instihit.  Virginis,  V.  35. 


The  Explanations.  281 

{h)  It  is  in  the  field  of  Gospel  texts  that  Jerome 
displays  against  his  opponents  all  the  treasures  of 
his  learning  and  all  the  refined  keenness  of  his 
mind. 

We  read  in  St.  Matthew  (i^^):  Cum  esset 
desponsata  mater  ejus  Maria  Joseph,  priusquam 
convenirent  inventa  est  in  utero  habens  de  Spiritu 
Sancto.  What  does  this  mean?  Helvidius  asked. 
Mary  not  only  is  entrusted  to  Joseph's  care,  she 
becomes  really  his  spouse ;  and,  had  not  the  union 
been  consummated  later  on,  the  Evangelist  would 
not  have  said,  priusquam  convenirent.  If  we 
speak  of  some  one  who  is  not  to  take  supper,  we 
do  not  say  that  this  or  that  event  occurred  before 
his  supper.  Besides,  the  same  Evangelist  speaks 
still  more  plainly  a  few  verses  below,  when  he 
adds :  Et  non  cognoscebat  earn,  donee  peperit 
filium  suuni  (i  ^^)  ;  and  this  is  emphasized  by  St. 
Luke's  words  {2'')  \  Et  peperit  filium  suuni  primo- 
genituni.  *  Texts  like  these,  Helvidius  affirmed, 
do  away  with  any  ambiguity,  not  only  because  of 
the  definite  meaning  of  the  term  cognoscebat, 
which  here  designates  the  conjugal  act,  but  also 


*  The  received  text  of  St.  Matthew  i  ^s  reads  rhv  npuToroKov. 
primogenitum;  but  that  is  an  interpolation  suggested  by 
Luke  2  7.  St.  Jerome,  as  well  as  Helvidius,  had  under  his 
eyes  an  unadulterated  text. 


282  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

because  it  can  be  no  question  of  a  first-born  son 
except  in  a  family  in  which  there  are  at  least  two 
children. 

St.  Jerome  proves  first  to  Helvidius  that  the 
latter  has  uttered  just  as  many  sophisms  as  words, 
unless  he  prefers  to  admit  that  he  has  confused 
everything.  A  young  woman  who  is  entrusted 
is  not  affianced,  nor,  if  she  is  affianced,  is  she 
thereby  a  wife  (although  the  Scriptures  call  her 
uxor)  :  all  this  is  beyond  question;  whilst  it  is 
equally  certain  that  a  w^ife  becomes  such,  only 
through  the  consummation  of  the  marriage.* 
Later  on,  St.  Ambrose  will  add  that  a  contract 
that  is  done  according  to  rule,  suffices  to  make  a 
couple  husband  and  wife.f  The  difficulty  taken 
from  the  words  of  the  Evangelists :  priusqiimn 
convenirent,  donee  peperit,X  St.  Jerome  answers 
by  quoting  many  a  Biblical  passage  in  which 
priusquain  and  donee  do  not  imply  the  subsequent 
occurrence  of  the  thing  which  is  said  not  to  have 
as  yet  taken  place  at  a  particular  time.§     Then,  in 


*§  4. 

f  De  Institut.  Virginis,  vi. 

J  The  actual  Latin  Vulgate  has  antequam  convenirent, 
which  conveys  the  same  meaning. 

§Matt.  28  20;  /  Cor.  1523-26;  ps,  122  2;  Qgn.  354  (ac- 
cording to  the  LXX)  ;  Deut.  34  «. 


The  Explanations.  283 

order  to  state  accurately  the  meaning  of  these  ex- 
pressions, he  appeals  to  the  every-day  language; 
and  it  is  in  this  connection  that  the  polemic  indul- 
ges in  an  application  which  to  some  delicate  critics 
seems  rather  uncourteous.  "If  I  choose  to  say: 
'Helvidius,  before  he  repented,  was  cut  off  by 
death,'  must  Helvidius  repent  after  death?"  * 
These  words  were  a  mere  sally  of  wit,  aimed  at  an 
opponent  who  had  also  made  use  of  examples  that 
were  just  as  inconclusive.  For,  after  all,  if  I  say 
of  some  one  that,  before  he  sat  down  to  supper, 
he  was  warned  that  there  was  poison  in  the  food, 
I  do  not  necessarily  mean  that,  on  that  very  same 
evening,  he  took  his  supper.  The  instances  taken 
from  Holy  Writ  were  more  appropriate,  especially 
that  of  Deuteronomy  34® :  No  man  knoweth  of  his 
sepulchre  (Moses')  unto  this  day.  Would  any 
one  be  bold  enough  to  infer  from  that  text  that 
the  tomb  of  Moses  was  found  afterward  or  even 
that,  in  the  writer's  mind,  it  could  ever  be  found, 
even  after  the  researches  of  the  Jews? 

Some  have  said  that  the  instances  chosen  with 
the  purpose  to  counterbalance  the  rather  unpleas- 
ant impression  made  by  St.  Matthew's  text  i  ^^, 
were  not  exactly  ad  rem.    True  it  is  that,  in  those 

*§  4- 


284         TJie  Childhood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

passages  where  the  circumstances  themselves  show 
plainly  enough  that  the  case  does  not  admit  of 
any  subsequent  change,  donee  implies  no  idea  of 
change.  But  it  is  quite  otherwise,  when  on  the 
contrary  the  circumstances  invite  us  to  look  out 
for  a  change,  after  the  term  pointed  out  by  donee. 
Did  we  read  in  the  second  book  of  Kings,  6  ^^, 
that  "Michol,  the  daughter  of  Saul,  had  no  child, 
until  she  left  David  and  became  the  wife  of 
Phaltiel"  (instead  of  iisque  in  diem  mortis  stue, — 
as  the  text  really  has),  we  would  rightly  conclude 
that,  after  leaving  David,  Michol  became  a 
mother,  because  maternity  is  both  the  end  and 
natural  result  of  marriage.* 

"Still  the  argument,  as  applied  to  this  particular 
case,"  C.  Harris  writes,  "is  not  convincing.  The 
Evangelist  is  not,  even  by  implication,  compar- 
ing together  the  connubial  relations  of  Joseph  and 
Mary  before  and  after  the  birth  of  Jesus  (as,  in 
the  case  supposed,  Michol's  connubial  relations 
with  David  and  Phaltiel  are  compared),  but  sim- 
ply affirming  in  the  strongest  possible  way  that 
Joseph  had  no  share  in  the  procreation  of  Jesus. 
Bengel's  laconic  comment  is,  therefore,  upon  the 
whole     justified — donee:     Non     sequitur,     ergo 


♦  Hastings'  Diet,  of  Christ,  Vol.  I,  p.  235. 


The  Explanations.  285 

post."  The  subsequent  mention  of  the  brethren 
of  Jesus  does  not  affect  the  question,  because  it 
was  well  known,  when  the  Evangelist  wrote,  who 
the  brethren  were,  and  there  was  no  need  to  guard 
against  misconception."* 

Moreover,  St.  Jerome  grants  to  Helvidius  that 
the  term  cognoscrbat  must  be  understood  here  of 
the  conjugal  act;  he  even  upbraids  him  for  losing 
his  time  in  disproving  senses  of  which  nobody 
ever  dreamt,  f 

The  Gospel  calls  Jesus  the  First  born  of  Mary. 
However,  St.  Jerome  observes,  whilst  every  only 
son  is  a  first-born,  not  every  first-born  is  an  only 
son,  although  he  may  be  so.  For  any  to  be  called 
first-born,  it  is  enough  to  have  been  brought  forth 
the  first,  even  though  he  has  no  younger  brothers 
and  sisters.  This  is  why  the  Mosaic  Law  regard- 
ing the  first-born  $  found  its  application,  as  soon 
as  the  mother  had  given  birth  to  a  son,  whether 


*  Ibid. 

t  St.  Jerome  either  exaggerates  or  is  mistaken.  St. 
Epiphanius,  Adv.  Hcer.,  Ixxviii,  17,  and  St.  Hilary,  In 
Matt,  i,  3,  understood  that  word  of  an  act  of  purely  intel- 
lectual knowledge.  After  Jesus'  birth,  St.  Joseph  knew 
Mary,  i.  e.,  had  a  full  knowledge  of  the  mystery  that  had 
just  taken  place  in  her. 

X  Exodus  34  19-20, 


286  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

he  was  to  be  the  only  one  or  to  be  followed  by 
several  others.  Is  it  not  commonly  said  that  a 
mother  died  when  bringing  forth  I  ler  first-born  ?  * 

Helvidiiis  asked  why  Joseph  and  Mary  entered 
into  a  betrothal,  if  they  did  not  intend  to  consum- 
mate the  marriage.  St.  Jerome  answers  that  the 
honor  of  Jesus  and  of  His  mother  demanded  that 
she  should  be  looked  upon  as  Josepiis  legitimate 
wife.  The  veil  of  the  Law  was  to  conceal  the 
mystery  of  God,  until  that  mystery  could  be  be- 
lieved :  then  only  was  it  to  be  revealed.  Again, 
the  Virgin-Mother  needed  a  protector,  and  the 
Divine  Child,  a  foster-father. f 

(c)  Even  after  those  explanations,  the  fact  re- 
mains that  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  men- 
tions several  times  the  fratres  of  the  Lord,  and  it 
was  on  that  fact  Helvidius  especially  dwelt.J 

*  8  9,  10. 

fin  his  Convienfary  on  St.  Matthezv,  St.  Jerome  adds  a 
third  reason,  that  brought  forward  already  by  St.  Ignatius, 
Ephes.,  xix,  and  developed  by  Origen,  Homil.  vii  in  Lucam, 
namely  that  Mary's  marriage  had  hid  from  the  evil  spirit 
the  fact  of  her  virginal  childbirth,  and  consequently,  too, 
the  mystery  of  her  Divine  maternity.  Of  Herzog,  w^ho,  in 
Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter.  Relig.,  1906,  pp.  337-440,  jeers 
quite  clumsily  at  the  ideas  entertained  by  the  ancients  about 
Satan's  psychology,  we  merely  observe  that  in  the  most 
serious  things  he  sees  and  takes  in  only  the  most  insig- 
nificant aspects. 

$8  II. 


The  Explanatioyis.  287 

St.  Jerome's  lively  wit  had  here  full  scope ;  nor 
did  he  miss  his  opportunity.  Were  his  opponent 
better  acquainted  with  Biblical  topics,  he  would 
know  that  Holy  Writ  calls  fratres,  not  only  those 
who  were  born  of  the  same  father  and  mother, 
but  also  ordinary  relatives,  particularly  nephews 
and  cousins:  hence  let  Helvidius  learn  that  this 
appellation  may  rest  on  four  different  titles: 
nature,  nationality,  relationship  and  friendship.* 


*  §  12-17,  14-  Certain  it  is  that  in  the  Old  Testament 
the  word  px,  translated  a««x<<.ds  by  the  Ixx,  applies  not 
only  to  brothers  strictly  so-called,  and  to  half-brothers, 
Genes.  27  ^^ ',  but  also  to  nephews,  Gen.  13  ^,  14  ^* ;  to  first 
cousins,  /  Paral.  23  21 ;  to  more  distant  cousins,  Levit.  10  ♦, 
to  relatives  in  general,  IV  Kings  10  ^^ ;  and  even  to  mere 
fellow-countrymen,  Gen.  19 «.  Hence  Renan,  who  cannot 
be  charged  with  not  knowing  Hebrew,  merely  imposed  on 
his  readers,  when  he  wrote :  "The  assertion  that  the 
word  ah  (brother,  frcre)  has  in  Hebrew  a  broader  mean- 
ing than  in  French  is  altogether  false.  The  meaning  of 
the  Vvford  ah  is  absolutely  the  same  as  that  of  the  word 
"frere."  The  fact  that  a  word  is  used  metaphorically  or 
allusively  or  wrongly,  proves  nothing  against  its  proper 
meaning."  {Life  of  Jesus,  13th  French  edit.,  p.  25.)  Never 
is  the  term  "brothers"  (freres)  used  in  French  to  designate 
nephews  and  cousins,  and  yet  this  is  done  in  Biblical  texts. 
That  extension  of  ah  was  due  not  to  a  metaphor,  but  to 
the  significance  which  custom  had  imparted  to  that  word. 
No  one  identified  the  "fratres  of  the  Lord"  with  the 
Apostles,  even  though  Jesus  Himself  called  the  latter 
"fratres."    St.  Augustine  appropriately  remarks  in  this  con- 


288  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

It  might  have  been  objected  to  St.  Jerome  that 
this  extensive  meaning  of  the  Aramaic  word  ah 
is  not  preserved  in  Greek  by  the  word  d8el4>6?; 
but  he  would  have  rightly  answered  that  the 
Evangehsts  translated  literally  the  Aramaic  term 
and  withdrew  from  it  none  of  the  various  mean- 
ings it  had  in  the  language  spoken  by  Jesus'  con- 
temporaries. This  had  already  been  done  by  the 
LXX. 

Besides,  in  the  same  page  where  the  Evangelists 
state  that  St.  Joseph  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
conception  of  Jesus,  they  call  him  His  "father" : 
why  then  can  they  not  have  given  the  name  of 
"fratres"  to  those  relatives  of  Jesus  who  were  not 
children  of  His  mother  ?  * 

{d)  Hence  the  "brethren  of  the  Lord"  may 
have  been,  not  His  full  brothers  by  the  mother's 
side,  but  only  His  more  or  less  distant  relatives. 
It  remains  for  us  to  examine  whether  we  have 
some  positive  reasons  for  affirming  that,  in  fact, 
they  were  not  Mary's  children. 

nection :  "Quomodo  loquitur  sic  intelligenda  est.  Habet 
linguam  suam  :  quicumque  banc  linguam  nescit,  turbatur  et 
dicit:  Unde  fratres  Domino?  Num  enim  Maria  iterum 
peperit?    Absit    ...     !"    In  Joan.,  tract,  x,  cap.  ii,  2. 

*§i6. 


The  Explanations.  289 

The  ecclesiastical  writers  of  old,  and  especially 
St.  Jerome,  have  reduced  to  four  chief  headings 
the  motives  on  which  the  traditional  belief  in  Our 
Blessed  Lady's  perpetual  virginity  is  grounded. 

That  virginity  is  implicitly  affirmed  in  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Annunciation.  Mary  asks  the  Angel : 
How  shall  this  he,  since  I  knozv  not  man?  Which 
does  not  mean  merely :  As  yet  I  have  known  no 
man;  for,  by  itself,  that  circumstance  was  no 
sufficient  obstacle  to  her  becoming  a  mother,  the 
more  so  that  she  was  already  betrothed,  and  that 
her  betrothal  itself  entitled  her  to  the  hope  of 
motherhood.  The  only  explanation  that  fully  ac- 
counts for  those  words  is  this :  Mary  had  made  up 
her  mind  to  preserve  her  virginity,  even  in  mar- 
riage, should  circumstances  ever  lead  her  to  em- 
brace that  state  of  life.  That  is  the  sentiment  of 
most  of  the  ancient  writers  who  have  commented 
on  St.  Luke's  narrative  of  the  Annunciation;  and 
this  view  has  been  adopted  also  by  the  Scholastics, 
by  modern  Catholic  interpreters  and  by  a  certain 
number  of  Protestant  divines.* 


*  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa; 
amongst  modern  scholars,  Schanz,  Comment,  iiber  das 
Evang.  des  heil.  Ltikas,  p.  88,  is  one  of  those  who  have 
treated  the  subject  best.  On  the  Protestant  side,  Grotius, 
and  nearer  to  us,  C.  Harris,  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christ 
and  the  Gospels,  Vol.  I,  p.  235,  may  be  quoted. 


290  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Again,  if  other  children  were  born  to  Mary, 
why  should  Jesus,  when  about  to  die,  have  en- 
trusted His  mother  to  an  outsider,  to  "the  disciple 
whom  He  loved"?  This  consideration,  which  in 
the  eyes  of  Lightfoot  deals  a  conclusive  blow  to 
the  opinion  of  Helvidius,*  is  simply  scoffed  at 
by  Herzog,  who  writes  as  follows:  "St.  John's 
Gospel  afforded  them  (the  ancient  Church  writ- 
ers) a  valuable  text.  There  it  was  said  that, 
whilst  hanging  from  the  cross,  the  Savior  had 
addressed  the  beloved  disciple  in  these  words, 
pointing  out  Mary  to  him:  Behold,  thy  mother! 
and  that  He  had  added,  pointing  out  the  disciple 
to  His  mother :  Behold,  thy  son !  Christians  thor- 
oughly and  thoughtfully  sifted  His  words  and 
found  a  mysterious  meaning  concealed  under  the 
surface."  f  Not  at  all :  they  had  merely  to  take 
the  letter  of  the  words.  The  "mysterious  mean- 
ing," a  meaning  most  deeply  "concealed  under 


*  Op.  cit.,  p.  272. 


^  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter.  Relig.,  1907,  p.  326.  The 
ancient  Church  writers,  so  easily  disposed  of  are  St.  Je- 
rome, Adv.  Helvid.,  §13;  St.  Epiphanius,  Hceres.  Ixxviii, 
10;  St.  Chrysostom,  In  Matt.,  v,  3;  St.  Hilary,  In  Matt., 
i,  4;  St.  Ambrose,  De  Velandis  Virginihus,  47,  48;  Pope 
St.  Siricius,  Epist.  de  Bonoso,  quoted  above.  That  thought 
is  already  found  in  Origen,  In  Joannem,  ii,  12,  in  Catena 
Corderii,  p.  75. 


The  Explanations.  291 

the  surface,"  would  be  the  one  proposed  by  Loisy, 
when  he  claims  that,  in  that  scene  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  the  Mother  of  Jesus  is  simply  the  allegori- 
cal personage  of  converted  Israel,  the  Judaeo- 
Christian  community,  whilst  the  disciple  is  the 
type  of  the  perfect  believer,  of  the  Johannic 
Christian,  of  the  Greco-Christian  Church !  * 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  the  fact  of  Jesus 
entrusting  His  mother  to  St.  John,  taken  by  itself, 
proves  conclusively  that  Mary  had  no  other  son, 
but  I  do  say  that  this  is  a  circumstance  to  be  taken 
into  account  for  the  solution  of  the  problem  con- 
cerning the  brethren  of  the  Lord. 

In  the  third  place,  unless  Jesus  was  the  only 
Son  of  His  mother,  why  did  His  contemporaries. 
His  countrymen  of  Nazareth,  call  Him  so  em- 
phatically the  Son  of  Mary?  If  the  "brethren 
of  the  Lord"  were  the  sons  of  His  mother,  how 
account  for  the  fact  that  nowhere  in  the  Gospels 
Mary  is  called  their  mother  ?  f 

True,  the  name  of  the  Savior's  mother  is  joined 
with  the  names  of  His  brethren :  %  but  this  admits 
of  an  easy  explanation.     After  the  death  of  St. 


*  Le  Quatrieme  Evangile,  p.  879. 

t§   IS. 

JMatt.  12*'^;  John  2  12. 


292  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Joseph,  and  chiefly  during  the  pubHc  Hfe  of  Jesus, 
Mary  probably  dwelt  under  the  same  roof  as 
her  nearest  relatives ;  that  community  of  life  may, 
perhaps,  have  started  even  some  years  before.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  several  ancient  ecclesiastical 
writers  thought  that  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  had 
been  brought  to  the  home  of  Mary,  on  account 
of  their  relationship  with  her  husband,  whatever 
its  degree  may  have  been. 

How  explain,  but  for  the  fact  of  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity,  that  she  has  always  been  called 
a  Virgin  f  As  has  been  already  remarked,  that 
title  dates  back  from  the  earliest  Christian  an- 
tiquity. If  Mary  had  seven  children,  one  of  whom 
at  least  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (leaving  aside 
several  others  who  played  important  parts  in  that 
same  Church),  can  we  believe  that  Christians 
forgot,  very  quickly  indeed,  so  notable  a  fact, 
and  henceforth  never  ceased  to  see  in  her  Jesus* 
Virgin-Mother  ? 

Renan  himself  felt  so  strongly  the  objections 
against  the  view  he  had  first  embraced  in  his  Life 
of  Jesus,  *  that  some  ten  years  later,  he  decided 
to  give  it  up:  "J^sus,"  he  writes,  "had  true  (full) 
brothers  and  sisters.    Only  it  is  possible  that  these 

*  Pp.  67-69. 


The  Explanations.  293 

brothers  and  sisters  were  but  half-brothers  and 
half-sisters.  Were  these  brothers  and  sisters  like- 
wise sons  and  daughters  of  Mary?  This  is  im- 
probable. In  fact,  the  brothers  appear  to  be  much 
older  than  Jesus.  Now  Jesus  was,  as  it  would 
appear,  the  first-born  of  his  mother.  Jesus,  more- 
over, was,  in  his  youth,  designated  at  Nazareth 
by  the  name  of  "Son  of  Mary."  For  this  we 
have  the  most  undoubted  testimony  of  the  Gos- 
pels. This  assumes  that  he  was  known  for  a 
long  time  as  the  only  son  of  a  widow.  In  fact, 
such  appellations  were  only  employed  when  the 
father  was  dead,  and  when  the  widow  had  no 
other  son.  Let  us  instance  the  case  of  Piero  della 
Francesca,  the  celebrated  painter.  In  fine  the 
myth  of  the  virginity  of  Mary,  without  excluding 
absolutely  the  idea  that  Mary  may  have  had  after- 
ward children  by  Joseph,  or  have  been  remarried, 
fits  in  better  with  the  hypothesis  that  she  had  only 
one  son."  * 

For,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  had  the  texts  to  be 
explained  by  the  mythical  interpretation,  I  would 
still  prefer  the  "myth  of  Mary's  virginity"  to  the 
myth  of  a  virgin,  mother  of  seven  children  and 
perhaps  twice  married ! 


*  The  Gospels,  p.  280. 


294  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Finally,  those  who  in  the  Gospel  are  called  "the 
fratres  of  the  Lord"  seem  to  have  been  older  than 
Jesus.  They  are  jealous  of  His  popularity ;  *  they 
criticise  Him  and  give  Him  advice ;  f  nay,  on 
one  occasion  they  endeavor  to  get  hold  of  Him, 
under  the  pretext  that  He  is  out  of  His  senses.J 
That  attitude  is  hardly  possible  on  the  part  of 
younger  brothers,  especially  if  we  take  into  ac- 
count the  customs  of  the  East.  But  if  the  fratres 
of  the  Lord  are  sons  of  Mary,  they  cannot  be 
older  than  Jesus,  since,  according  to  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  Mary  was  still  a  virgin  when  she 
conceived  Him:  Jesus  was  the  First-born  of  His 
mother. 

5.  In  that  campaign  which  he  undertook  to 
defend  Mary's  perpetual  virginity,  St.  Jerome  had 
the  approval  and  support  of  all  the  learned  and 
distinguished  men  of  the  time :  in  the  East,  St. 
John  Chrysostom,§  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  |1 
Theodoret,^  Theophylactus,**  leaving  aside  St. 


♦Mark  6*. 

tJOHN   71//. 

t  Mark  3  21. 

§  In  Matt.,  horn,  v,  3. 
II  In  Joan.,  vii,  5. 

^  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  i,  in  fine. 

**  In  Matt.,  xiii,  55 ;  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  i,  19. 


The  Explanations.  295 

Epiphanius  *  and  St.  Basil  f  who  had  preceded ; 
in  the  West,  St.  Ambrose,!  St.  Augustine, §  the 
Ambrosiaster  ||  and  Pelagius  himself.^ 

Then,  the  expHcit  definitions  of  Popes  and 
Councils  soon  came  to  proclaim  authoritatively 
that  the  opponent  of  Helvidius  had  defended  the 
traditional  faith.  In  his  rescript  to  Anysius  (391), 


*  Loc.  cit. 

tThis  is  an  allusion  to  the  writing  entitled  Homilia  in 
Sand.  Christi  generationem  (Migne,  P.  G.,  xxxii,  1468). 
Its  authenticity  has  been  called  in  question :  according  to 
Dom  Gamier,  it  is  not  St.  Basil's  work;  according  to 
Bardenhewer,  it  has  been  interpolated.  Dififerently  from 
J.  B.  LiGHTFOOT,  op.  cit.,  p.  284,  we  believe  that  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity  is  here  presented  as  an  article  necessary 
for  the  integrity  of  faith ;  what  the  author  does  say  is  that 
the  contrary  view  would  not  do  away  with  the  faith  in  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation. 

X  Loc.  cit. 

§  Haller  has  gathered  in  his  Jovinianiis,  pp.  88-109,  all 
the  numerous  texts  of  St.  Augustine  on  this  subject.  We 
may  quote  merely  what  the  holy  Doctor  wrote  in  the  year 
420  about  the  Pelagian  Julian:  "More  illius  Joviniani,  qui 
aute  paucos  annos  hsereticus  novus  virginitatem  sanctae 
Marise  destruebat,  et  virginitati  sacrse  nuptias  fidelium 
coasquabat."     Contra  duas  Epist.  Pelag.,  i,  4. 

II  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  printed  generally  at  the  end  of  the 
works  of  St.  Ambrose,  Migne,  P.  L.,  xvii,  338. 

fl  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  ii,  19;  at  the  end  of  the  works  of 
St.  Jerome,  Migne,  P.  L.,  xxx,  808. 

21 


296  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

Pope  St,  Siricius  declares  that  Bonosus  was 
rightly  rebuked,  and  that  his  judges  did  well  when 
rejecting  and  condemning  his  view.  During  the 
7th  century  (649)  the  Council  held  by  Martin  I 
in  the  Lateran,  puts  under  the  ban  any  one  who 
does  not  confess  that  "the  ever  virgin  and  spotless 
Mary  .  .  .  did  not  bring  forth  the  Word  of 
God,  without  any  detriment  for  her  virginity, 
which  remained  intact  after  her  child-bearing.'' 
Nearer  to  us  (1555),  Paul  IV  solemnly  affirmed 
against  the  Socinians  that  Mary's  virginity  ante 
par  turn,  in  partu,  post  par  turn,  is  a  part  of  Cath- 
olic dogma.* 


Orthodox  apologists  have  not  only  declared, 
in  the  name  of  tradition  and  of  the  texts,  that 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord  were  not  born  of  Mary : 
they  have  also  attempted  to  define  with  precision 


*  Siricii  Papae  Epistola  ad  Anysium  de  perpetua  Vir- 
ginitate  Maria,  (Denzinger,  Enchir.,  n.  1781 ;  new  ed.,  n. 
91)  ;  Concilii  Lateran.  sub  Martino  i,  Can.  3  (Denzinger^ 
Enchir.,  n.  204 ;  new  ed.,  n.  256)  ;  PauH  iv  Constitutio  Cum 
quorumdam,  confirmata  a  Clemente  viii  (Denzinger,  En- 
chir., n.  880;  new  ed.,  993). 


The  Explanations.  297 

the  degree  of  their  relationship  with  Jesus.  As 
might  be  expected,  they  have  not  agreed  on  this 
latter  point. 

St,  Epiphanius,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  follow  the  view  that  had  been 
made  current  by  the  apocryphal  Gospels.  The 
brethren  of  the  Lord  were  St.  Joseph's  children 
by  a  former  marriage.*  Origen  and  after  him 
St.  Hilary  had  also  accepted  that  view,  though 
with  hesitation.!  That  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Eusebius  and  the  Ambrosiater  inclined  to  this 
opinion  is  probable,  but  not  certain.  $  True,  they 
say  that,  in  the  Gospel,  some  personages  are  called 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord  because  they  were,  or 
rather  because  they  were  called  the  sons  of  Joseph ; 


*  St.  Epiph.,  Adv.  Hcer.,  Ixxxviii,  7 ;  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  In  Christi  Resur.,  orat.  ii ;  St.  Cyril  of  Alexand., 
In  Joan.,  vii,  5.  Nay,  St.  Epiphanius  adds  a  few  more  pre^ 
cise  details  not  found  in  his  predecessors.  He  knows  that 
St.  Joseph,  the  brother  of  Clopas,  was  son  of  Jacob  sur- 
named  Panther ;  that  he  had  first  married  a  woman  of  the 
tribe  of  Juda  who  gave  him  six  children :  four  sons  (James, 
Joseph,  Simeon  and  Jude),  and  two  daughters  (Mary  and 
Salome).  Esther  and  Thamar  or  Martha  are  also  men- 
tioned by  others  in  this  connection. 

t  Cf.  above,  p.  274. 

I  Father  Corluy,  op.  cit.,  p.  15,  grants  that  Eusebius 
favors  the  sentiment  of  St.  Epiphanius. 


298  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

this  is  the  expression  used  by  Eusebius  in  connec- 
tion with  James,  the  first  bishop  of  Jerusalem.* 
With  all  respect  due  to  Lightfoot,  both  the  con- 
struction of  the  phrase  and  the  wording  of  the 
context  prompt  us  to  believe  that,  for  Eusebius, 
Jesus  and  James  were  brothers,  because  both  of 
them  zvere  called  sons  of  Joseph.  It  remains  to 
inquire  by  what  title  they  were  sons  of  Joseph. 
We  believe  it  more  probable  that  in  this  case 
Eusebius  depends  on  Hegesippus,  whose  writings 
he  used  so  frequently.  Now,  as  was  said  already, 
the  latter  sees  in  the  Lord's  brethren  paternal 
cousins  of  Jesus.f 

It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  St.  Jerome  did 
not  know  how  the  tradition  stood.  He  is  so 
unconscious  of  having  departed,  in  his  dispute 
with  Helvidius,  from  a  well-grounded  and  gen- 
erally accepted  view  that,  twenty  years  later, 
he  writes  again :  "Some  suppose  the  Lord's  breth- 
ren to  be  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife, 
following  the  ravings  of  the  Apocryphals."t  Per- 


*  H.   E.,  II,    I  :    oTi  Jt)  K.a\  ouTos  ToC  'l»)<r»)(J)  livo/ioaro  ira.1%. 

t  Cf.  above,  pp.  266,  and  //. 

%  Comment,  in  Matt.,  xii,  49,  50;  written  in  the  year  398. 
From  what  has  just  been  said,  the  reader  may  judge 
whether  or  not  Herzog  gives  a  fair  account  of  the  ques- 
tion when  he  writes:  "In  those  words   (which  affirm  St. 


The  Explanations.  299 

sonally  he  stands  by  what  he  has  already  written 
in  his  book  Adversiis  Helvidiimi.  The  Lord's 
brethren  are  His  cousins,  born  of  that  Mary  whom 
the  Gospel  calls  the  mother  of  James  the  Less 
and  of  Joseph;  she  was  the  wife  of  Alpheus  and 
the  maternal  aunt  of  Jesus,  since  she  was  the 
sister  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  She  is  also  called  by 
St.  John  Mary  of  Clopas  (Cleophas  among  the 
Latins),  because  she  was  his  daughter  or  perhaps 
merely  his  relative.  Hewever,  in  the  eyes  of  St. 
Jerome  this  last  point  is  secondary  and  hardly  of 
any  importance ;  hence  he  will  not  argue  about  it. 
What  he  claims  against  Helvidius,  in  the  name 
of  the  texts,  is  that  this  Mary  should  not  be  iden- 
tified with  the  mother  of  Jesus.*     Above  all,  he 

Joseph's  virginity  and  represent  the  brethren  of  the  Lord 
as  maternal  cousins  of  Jesus),  St.  Jerome  departs  from 
a  tradition  two  centuries  old.  At  the  time  he  lived,  the 
narrative  of  the  Gospel  of  James  had  in  the  long  run  been 
received  by  all,  except  by  a  few  who  were  still  behind  the 
age,  like  Helvidius ;  now  Jerome  sets  aside  that  narrative 
which  almost  all  held  in  respect,  and  represents  as  cousins 
of  Christ,  I.  e.,  as  sons  of  Mary's  sister — as  he  explains  in 
his  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew — those  who  were  called 
the  brothers  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospel  text,  and  who,  during 
the  last  two  centuries,  had  been  looked  upon  as  His  step- 
brothers." Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter.  Relig.,  July-August, 
1907,  p.  331- 

*  Adv.  Helvid.,  13,  14.    True,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  In 
Christi  Resurrectionem,  orat.  ii  (Migne,  P.  G.,  xlvi,  648), 


300  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

proclaims  emphatically  St.  Joseph's  virginity: 
"You  say  that  Mary  did  not  continue  a  virgin : 
I  claim  still  more,  that  Joseph  himself  on  account 
of  Mary  was  a  virgin,  so  that  from  a  virgin  wed- 
lock a  virgin  son  was  born."  * 

This  view  St.  Jerome  does  not  ground  on  the 
authority  of  his  predecessors,  but  on  reasons  of 
great  fitness :  reasons  which  are  the  more  plausible 
that  the  texts  of  the  Gospel,  far  from  opposing 
it,  can  be  much  better  understood  in  that  hypothe- 
sis. It  is  only  of  the  view  concerning  St.  Joseph's 
virginity,  but  not  of  the  view  according  to  which 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord  were  cousins  of  Jesus 
that  the  statement  of  Baronius  must  be  under- 
stood: "Hujus  (opinionis)  f or tissimus  stipulator 
seu  potius  auctor  Hieronymus."^ 

St.  Chrysostom  and  St.  Augustine  had  favored 
first  the  view  of  St.  Epiphanius,  but  they  soon 
adopted  that  of  St.  Jerome.  $    They  were  followed 

makes  that  confusion,  though  in  a  very  different  sense :  the 
Blessed  Virgin  is  called  Mary,  mother  of  James  and  Joseph, 
because  they  had  become  her  step-sons,  through  her  mar- 
riage to  St.  Joseph,  their  father. 

*  Adv.  Helvidium,  19. 

^  Apparat.  ad  Annales,  xli. 

t  St.  Chrysostom  sides  with  St.  Epiphanius,  in  his  Com- 
ment, in  Matt,  hom.  v,  3;  with  St.  Jerome,  in  his  Com- 
ment, in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  in  fine.     St.   Augustine  sides 


The  Explanations.  301 

a  short  while  after  by  Theodoret  and  Theophy- 
lactus,  among-  the  Greeks;  as  to  the  Latins,  they 
mention  the  hypothesis  of  a  former  marriage  of 
St.  Joseph,  but  only  to  declare  it  cannot  be  ac- 
cepted.* 

Moreover,  it  was  not  long  before  complemen- 
tary explanations  were  added  to  St.  Jerome's 
opinion.  Not  only  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
was  identified  with  the  Apostle  James,  son  of 
Alpheus,  but  Alpheus  himself  was  then  identified 
with  Clopas,  so  that  the  appellation  "Mary,  that 
of  Clopas"  must  be  translated  by  "Mary,  wife  of 
Alpheus."  'Ak<paio<s  and  A'AwTra?  could  be  only  two 
Greek  transcriptions  of  the  same  Hebrew  name 
'flSn.  This  hypothesis  will  be  accepted  for  many 
years,  though,  in  our  day,  the  number  of  those 
who  question  its  truth  is  on  the  increase,  f 

with  St.  Epiphanius,  in  Quasi,  xvii  in  Matt.,  iii,  2 ;  with  St. 
Jerome,  In  Joan.,  tract,  x,  cap.  ii,  n.  2 ;  tract,  xxxviii,  3 ; 
in  his  Comm.  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  he  combines  both  views. 

*  Theodoretus,  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  i,  towards  the  end ; 
Theophvlactus  In  Matt.,  xiii,  55 ;  In  Galat.,  i,  19,  where 
he  attempts  to  combine  both  views :  James  is  the  brother  of 
Jesus,  since  he  is  the  legal  son  of  Joseph  who,  by  complying 
with  the  law  of  the  Levirate,  had  given  children  to  his 
brother  Clopas. 

fThat  identification,  which  seems  to  be  first  found  in 
St.  Chrysostom,  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  i,  19,  and  later  on  by 


302  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

A  few  more  identifications  were  made  later. 
In  the  Apostolic  College,  side  by  side  with  James, 
another  brother  of  the  Lord  took  his  rank : — Jiide, 
the  author  of  the  Epistle,  became  the  Apostle 
Thaddeus,  called  also  Lebbeus.  Nay,  some 
authors  have  asked  themselves  whether  Simon,  or 
Simeon,  the  second  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  was 
truly  distinct  from  the  Apostle  Simon,  called  the 
Canaansean  or  Zelotes,  styled  by  St.  Jerome  tri- 
nomius.  Those  identifications,  which  are  found 
in  some  way  or  other  in  all  the  Western  liturgies, 
including  the  Roman  liturgy,  are  unknown  to  the 
Orientals.*    The  Council  of  Trent  itself  identifies 

Theodoretus,  In  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  i,  19,  has  been  exposed 
and  defended  at  length  by  Corluy,  op.  cit.,  pp.  146-148. 
The  objections  that  may  be  raised  against  it  may  be  seen 
in  ViGOUROUx'  Diction,  de  la  Bible,  i,  419.  Renan  upheld 
successively  the  two  opinions.  "These  two  names  appear 
to  designate  the  same  person."  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  68.  "Peo- 
ple have  often  identified  the  name  of  'AA<^oros  with  that  of 
KAwTToi  by  means  of  "'ijbn.  This  is  indeed  a  reconcile- 
ment which  is  altogether  false."    The  Gospels,  p.  283. 

*  The  Greek,  Syriac  and  Coptic  Ordines  distinguish  James, 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,  from  James  of  Alpheus.  The 
Greeks  celebrate  the  feast  of  the  Apostle,  son  of  Alpheus, 
on  October  9,  and  that  of  the  Lord's  brother  on  the  23d 
of  the  same  month.  It  may  be  observed  that  in  the  oldest 
Roman  martyrologies  James,  son  of  Alpheus,  is  mentioned 
on  June  22 ;  whilst  as  to  James  of  Jerusalem,  his  ordination 
is  commemorated  on  December  28  and  his  death  on 
March  25. 


The  Explanations.  303 

in  passing  James,  the  author  of  the  Catholic 
Epistle,  with  the  brother  of  the  Lord.*  Joseph, 
then,  would  be  the  only  one  among  the  brethren 
of  the  Lord  who  would  not  have  had  the  honor 
of  being  reckoned  among  the  Twelve. 

However,  that  view  is  far  from  being  universal. 
Regarding  the  question  whether  or  not  some 
Apostles  were  recruited  from  the  brethren  of 
Jesus,  critics  are  divided  into  two  schools,  whose 
respective  arguments  Corluy  has  carefully  exposed 
and  discussed.  These  two  schools,  he  says,  "may 
be  called,  one  the  Patristic  school,  the  other  the 
exegetical  school.  The  former,  relying  chiefly  on 
the  authority  of  the  Fathers,  denies  altogether  to 
the  cousins  of  Jesus  the  quality  of  Apostles:  the 
latter  thinks  it  can  find  in  the  Biblical  texts  suffi- 
cient indications  to  affirm,  in  spite  of  the  con- 
trary view  of  several  of  the  holy  Fathers,  that 
two,  and  even  perhaps  three  of  the  'brethren'  of 
Jesus  belonged  to  the  Apostolic  College.  There 
are  found  in  both  of  these  schools  distinguished 
scholars.  The  former  is  represented  chiefly  by 
the  Bollandists  Henschenius,  Stiltinck  and  Van 
Hecke;  the  latter  includes,  besides  the  illustrious 


*Sess.  iv,  decret.  Sacrosancta;  Sess.  xiv,  cap.  i,  De  Ex- 
trema  Unci.  (Denzinger,  Enchirid,  n.  786;  new  ed.,  n.  908). 


304  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

critic  Le  Nain  de  Tillemont,  most  weighty  inter- 
preters like  Patrizi,  Toletus,  Lucas  of  Bruges, 
Maldonatus,  Beelen,  Liagre,  Adalbert  Maier, 
Drach,  Windischmann,  Hengstenberg,  and 
others."  * 

On  the  other  hand,  St.  Joseph's  virginity,  which 
had  been  upheld  by  St.  Jerome,  soon  became  com- 
monly held  in  the  Latin  Church;  so  that  during 
the  nth  century  St.  Peter  Damian  could  write 
that  "this  was  the  expression  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church."  t  St.  Thomas  dismisses  peremptorily  as 
"false"  the  exegesis  according  to  which  the  Lord's 
brethren  are  children  of  St.  Joseph.^ 

Petau  is  less  positive:  for  him  the  doctrine 
of  St.  Joseph's  virginity  is  only  more  probable.  § 
Now,  that  for  the  space  of  two  centuries,  the 
piety  of  the  faithful  has  come  to  confirm  that 
pious  belief,  the  view  of  the  learned  theologian 
seems  excessively  timid  and  even  unsatisfactory. 
Corluy  goes  then,  much  farther,  when  he  writes : 
"The  Catholic  mind  has  definitely  sided  with  the 


*  Corluy,  op.  cit.,  p.  145. 

t  "Ecclesiae  fides  est,  ut  virgo  f uerit  et  is  qui  simulatus 
est  pater."    Opusc.  xvii,  3.    Migne,  P.  L.,  cxlv,  384. 

%  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Galat.,  cap.  i,  lect.  5. 

%De  Incarnatione,  XIV,  iii,  13;  Vol.  VII,  p.  254. 


Criticism  and  Conclusion.  305 

idea  of  the  great  interpreter  (St.  Jerome).  It 
would,  therefore,  be  rash  to  call  in  doubt  the  per- 
petual virginity  of  Mary's  husband."  * 

CHAPTER  III. 

CRITICISM  AND  CONCLUSION. 

(i)  Regarding  the  texts  that  refer  to  the 
brethren  of  the  Lord,  there  is  a  dogmatic  tradition 
of  a  negative  character,  bearing  on  the  sense  to 
be  given  to  those  texts.  The  exegesis,  according 
to  which  these  personages  are  the  brothers  of 
Jesus,  born  of  the  same  mother,  is  incompatible 
with  the  dogma  of  Mary's  perpetual  virginity. 
Hence  it  is  in  the  name  of  the  traditional  faith 
that  Christians  have  constantly  opposed  the  view 
of  the  Antidicomarianites,  of  Helvidius,  Bonosus 
and  Jovinian. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sentiment  of  Helvidius 
is  not  satisfactorily  grounded  on  the  texts  nor  on 
the  merely  historical  tradition.  True,  it  solves 
the  difficulty  raised  by  the  expression  fratres  of 
the  Lord;  but  it  introduces  into  the  texts  im- 
probabilities, inconsistencies  which  a  correct  exe- 
gesis cannot  successfully  explain  away.  It  is  pre- 
cisely these  arguments  based  on  the  Gospel  nar- 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  16. 


3o6  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

rative  which  St.  Jerome  brought  forward  in  be- 
half of  the  opposite  view  and  which  have  been 
looked  upon  as  forcible  by  subsequent  interpre- 
ters. 

As  to  the  tradition  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
it  was  so  little  favorable  to  the  view  of  Helvidius 
that  the  latter  dared  appeal  only  to  Tertullian  and 
to  Victorinus  of  Pettau;  even  the  latter's  opinion 
was  doubtful,  according  to  St.  Jerome.  Nay,  the 
faith  in  Mary's  perpetual  virginity  is  emphatically 
proclaimed  in  the  name  of  Virgin  which  the  2d 
century  apologists  ascribe  antonomastically  to 
Mary,  and  it  becomes  soon  explicit  in  the  ap- 
pellation d£i7:dp0£vo<},  found  in  the  old  formulas 
of  faith. 

It  is  easy  to  affirm  that  when  growing  and  grad- 
ually gaining  in  intensity  the  religious  sentiment 
went,  by  an  irresistible  law,  beyond  the  primitive 
meaning  of  the  texts;  it  is  also  easy  to  add  that 
in  the  long  run  the  Christian  conscience  became 
proof  against  the  protest  of  history.  This  is  a 
mere  gratuitous  assertion.  Consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously it  rests,  partly  at  least,  on  the  prejudice 
of  a  radical  religious  evolutionism.  For  most  of 
those  who  now  follow  the  exegesis  of  Helvidius, 
any  belief  in  the  supernatural  must  start  from  a 
natural  fact,  which  faith  has  transfigured  through 


Crificisiii  and  Conclusion.  307 

a  process  of  allegorical  or  mythical  sublimation. 
Then,  on  what  grounds  does  the  affirmation 
rest  that  the  conscience  of  the  early  Christian 
generations  lacked,  as  regards  the  primitive  facts 
of  Christianity,  both  intelligence  and  honesty? 
The  study  of  the  literature  of  that  age,  to  begin 
with  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  contradicts  that  assertion 
most  plainly.  The  reverence  for  the  boundaries 
set  by  the  primitive  data  of  Christian  doctrine  is 
most  clearly  perceived  in  the  long  and  painful 
struggle  which  orthodoxy  had  to  bear  against  the 
Gnostic  Docetse.  However  attractive  for  Chris- 
tian souls  may  have  been  the  theory  of  a  Christ 
who  had  been  made  in  Heaven  and  who,  like  the 
manna  of  old,  had  come  down  upon  earth,  the 
Church  remained  firm  in  her  belief  in  the  Christ 
of  the  Gospels,  whose  life  is  so  much  encom- 
passed with  the  weaknesses  of  our  nature  that 
human  wisdom  is,  so  to  say,  confounded  and 
scandalized  at  the  sight.  With  dispositions  like 
these,  the  Christian  conscience  must  have  had 
strong  reasons  indeed  to  profess  Christ's  Virgin- 
Birth  and  His  mother's  perpetual  virginity,  the 
more  so  especially  that  the  contrary  seemed  to  be 
affirmed  by  some  passages  of  the  Gospels. 

Some   one   has   claimed   that   "the   dogma   of 
Christ's  virginal  conception  demanded,  as  its  natu- 


3o8  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

ral  and  necessary  complement,  Mary's  perpetual 
virg-inity,  and  that  the  latter  followed  up  the 
former  so  closely  that  they  must  stand  or  fall 
together."  *  This  is  indeed  a  very  free  manner 
of  writing  the  history  of  Christian  doctrines. 
With  a  method  like  that,  one  can  bring  forward 
any  explanation  whatever  of  the  actual  Creed; 
but  one  can  just  as  easily,  even  far  more  easily, 
show  that,  on  these  principles,  that  Creed  should 
be  quite  different  from  what  it  is  actually. 

True,  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  particularly 
St.  Epiphanius,  likened  the  Virgin's  womb  to  the 
new  sepulchre  where  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
laid;  they  exposed  at  length  how  fitting  it  was 
that  the  door,  which  had  been  opened  to  the 
Divine  King,  should  be  closed  to  any  one  else. 
However,  they  do  not  exaggerate  the  bearing  of 
those  considerations  which,  whilst  making  the 
dogma  more  plausible,  are  not  able  by  themselves 
to  create  it. 

Some  have  also  surmised  that  the  belief  in 
Mary's  perpetual  virginity  probably  began  in  the 
2d  or  in  the  3d  century,  just  as  we  witness  in  the 
4th  century  the  rise  of  the  belief  in  St.  Joseph's 
virginity :  a  belief  which  was  to  be  the  doctrinal 


*  Her20g,  Revue  d'Hist.  et  de  Litter.  Relig.,  July-August, 
1907,  p.  320 ;  cf .,  p.  327. 


Criticisin  and  Conclusion.  309 

profit  of  the  controversy  of  St.  Jerome  with  Hel- 
vidius :  to  the  conquests  previously  made  a  new 
conquest  was  added.  The  example  just  quoted 
will  enable  us  to  point  out  most  plainly  the  great 
and  ever-enduring  difference  there  is  between  a 
dogma  and  a  pious  belief. 

When  Mary's  perpetual  virginity  was  denied, 
there  arose  a  unanimous  voice  of  protest,  in  the 
name  of  traditional  faith,  all  over  Christendom, 
in  the  East  and  in  the  West.  The  innovators 
were  styled  senseless,  froward,  wicked.  Origen 
had  already  called  them  heretics.  The  dogma  was 
chiefly  insisted  on,  the  explanation  of  the  texts 
that  might  give  rise  to  objections  being  left  in  the 
background.  On  several  occasions  the  Church 
came  forward  and  sanctioned  by  her  definitions 
the  protest  of  the  Christian  conscience.  On  the 
contrary,  when  St.  Jerome  speaks  of  St.  Joseph's 
virginity,  he  carefully  abstains  from  invoking  tra- 
dition; he  knows — and  he  confesses,  too — that 
several  ancient  writers — and  not  of  the  least — 
had  different  views  on  the  same  subject.*     It  is 


♦According  to  the  treatise  Adv.  Helvidium,  19,  those 
who  before  him  held  an  opinion  contrary  to  his  own,  are 
the  majority,  plerique.  But,  as  is  well  known,  that  word 
has  not,  under  the  pen  of  St.  Jerome,  a  very  definite  sense. 
In  the  De  Viris  illustr.,  2,  plerique  becomes  nonnulli,  and 
in  the  Comm.  in  Matt.,  xii,  49,  quidatn. 


3IO  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

in  the  name  of  the  texts  and  for  the  purpose  of 
satisfying  the  piety  of  the  faithful,  that  he  op- 
poses his  exegesis  to  the  rash  affirmation  of  those 
who  look  upon  St.  Joseph  as  the  real  father  of 
the  Lord's  brethren.*  St.  Jerome's  sentiment  has 
become  current  in  the  Church,  and  some  have 
rightly  said  that,  owing  to  the  action  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  that  directs  the  piety  of  the  faithful  and 
Christian  worship,  it  would  be  rash  to  call  that 
sentiment  in  question,  and  scandalous  to  speak 
against  it;  but  no  theologian  ever  claimed  it  was 
a  dogma,  nor  even  a  doctrine  that  was  to  be 
defined.  This  the  judicious  Tillemont  had  already 
observed  at  length,  several  centuries  ago.f 


*  "Quod  plerique  non  tarn  pia  quam  audaci  temeritate 
confingunt."  Adv.  Helvid.,  19.  How  did  St.  Epiphanius 
fail  to  notice  that,  unless  he  gainsays  the  text  of  the  Gos- 
pel, he  must  admit  that,  when  St.  Joseph  was  the  fiance  or 
the  husband  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  he  had  still  that  first 
wife  whom  the  apocryphal  Gospels  assigned  to  him?  For 
it  is  evident  that  the  mother  at  least  of  two  of  the  Lord's 
brethren,  Mary  of  Clopas,  is  one  of  the  holy  women  who 
accompanied  Jesus. 

t  These  are  his  words :  "Cardinal  Peter  Damian  goes 
even  farther  and  says  that  it  is  the  faith  of  the  Church ; 
which,  of  course,  must  be  understood  of  that  common 
belief.  For  that  great  man  was  too  well-read  not  to  know 
that  it  would  overthrow  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  to 
decree  and  range  among  the  articles  of  faith  a  point  on 


Criticism  and  Conclusion.  311 

Did  the  increasing  regard  and  veneration  for 
virginity — of  wliich  monachism  was  in  the  4th 
century  the  pubHc  and  social  expression — did  that 
regard  and  veneration  exercise  a  telHng  influence 
on  the  doctrines  pertaining  to  the  marriage  of 
Mary  and  Joseph?  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
the  sympathies  or  antipathies  for  monachism 
added  a  new  fuel  to  the  controversy  on  that  sub- 
ject. The  followers  of  either  view  sought  in  the 
Bible  for  texts  that  might  either  extol  or  under- 
value the  state  of  virginity.  Some  found  their 
interest  in  representing  Mary  as  the  type  of  the 
Christian  wife,  who  differed  from  the  honest 
mother  of  a  family,  merely  by  the  honor  of  Divine 
maternity;  the  others  were  glad  and  proud  to  be 
able  to  place  under  the  patronage  of  the  "ever 
virgin"  the  practice  of  virginity,  which  was  for 
them  the  ideal  of  Christian  life.  We  grant  that, 
under  the  sway  of  these  contrary  preoccupations, 
excesses  took  place  even  on  the  part  of  the  Ortho- 
dox, that  some  texts  were  explained  in  a  mean- 
ing which  was  not  their  real  meaning.     But  it  is 

which  Holy  Writ  is  silent;  for  several  of  the  Fathers  have 
taught  against  it  and  it  is  held  by  none  of  the  ancient 
writers,  except  St.  Jerome.  It  is  to  be  observed  also  that 
St.  Jerome  maintained  it  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  on  very 
insufficient  grounds,  and  not  as  the  belief  of  his  time." 
Memoires  pour  servir  a  I'Hist.  Eccles.,  1693,  Vol.  I,  p.  505. 
aa 


312  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

manifest — and  this  we  intended  to  show  in  our 
essay — that  neither  those  influences,  nor  the  so- 
called  strain  inflicted  by  Christian  exegesis  on  the 
primitive  sense  of  the  texts  of  the  Gospel,  can 
fully  account,  from  a  strictly  historical  point  of 
view,  for  the  origin  of  the  dogma  of  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity. 

Besides,  why  wait  until  the  4th  century  for  signs 
of  the  possible  reaction  of  practice  upon  doctrine? 
Christ  Himself  and  St.  Paul  after  Him,  early  pro- 
claimed the  superiority  of  virginity  over  matri- 
mony, and  all  know  that  in  the  Church  there  has 
always  been  an  elite  of  men  and  women  who  have 
striven  to  put  their  lives  in  harmony  with  that 
Gospel  ideal.  Were  the  dogma  of  Mary's  per- 
petual virginity  the  spontaneous  outcome  of  that 
esteem  for  continence,  why  is  it  that  Tertullian, 
whose  excessive  encratism  is  a  well-known  fact, 
was  actually  the  ancestor  of  Helvidius?  Again, 
why  is  it  that  the  ascetic  spirit  and  tendencies  of 
St.  Epiphanius,  which  were  at  least  as  strong  as 
those  of  St.  Jerome,  did  not  suggest  to  him  the 
idea  of  St.  Joseph's  virginity?  These  and  many 
other  questions  on  similar  subjects  cannot  be  satis- 
factorily answered.  Hence  it  is  much  better  to 
abide  by  the  facts  and  the  texts  than  to  make  one's 
thoughts  subservient  to  a  preconceived  theory. 


Criticism  and  Conclusion.  313 

(2)  What  is  the  exact  degree  of  relationship 
for  which  James,  Joseph,  Simon  and  Jude  have 
been  called  the  "brethren  of  the  Lord"  ?  On  this 
point  there  is  no  strictly  dogmatic  tradition  and 
statement ;  the  historical  tradition  itself  is  neither 
uniform  nor  constant.  The  view  of  St.  Jerome, 
who  looks  upon  them  as  the  cousins  of  Jesus,  has 
long  supplanted  the  view  of  St.  Epiphanius;  but 
that  success  does  not  suffice  to  make  the  point 
altogether  certain.  Besides,  in  the  course  of  ages, 
his  exegesis  has  undergone  many  a  modification. 
Instead  of  maternal  cousins,  nowadays  paternal 
cousins  are  more  currently  spoken  of.  Those  rela- 
tives of  Jesus  are  divided  into  two  groups :  a 
division  which  seems  to  be  allowed  by  the  text  of 
the  Gospels.  In  some  passages  the  brethren  of  the 
Lord  are  merely  four  in  number,  but  in  other 
passages,  when  their  mother  is  mentioned,  only 
two  are  reckoned :  James  and  Joseph.*  Does  not 
this  sufficiently  show  that  not  all  were  related  to 
Jesus  in  the  same  degree? 

Hence  some  scholars,  whose  number  is  daily 
increasing,  hold  that  Joseph  (the  husband  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin)  had  a  brother,  Clopas,  and  a 
sister,  Mary,  wife  of  Alpheus.f     Of  course,  this 

*  Matt.  27  5«. 

t  In  that  hypothesis,  Mapi'a  ^  toO  KKiani  is  translated  Mary, 
sister  of  Clopas,  and  uapia  17  toC  'iokw/Sov,  Mary,  mother  of 
James. 


314  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

view  rejects  the  identification  of  Clopas  with  Al- 
pheus.  Simeon  and  Jude  are  sons  of  Clopas: 
James  and  Joseph,  sons  of  Mary.*  That  group- 
ing is  suggested  by  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus, 
and,  moreover,  agrees  with  the  texts  of  the  New 
Testament  more  fully  than  any  other  explanation. 
As  to  the  subsequent  identifications,  they  are 
still  more  doubtful.  Are  James  and  Jude,  breth- 
ren of  the  Lord,  to  be  identified  with  the  Apostles 
St.  James  the  Less  and  St.  Jude?  The  question 
is  open.  Even  we  must  confess  that  the  affirm- 
ative answer  squares  most  unsatisfactorily  with 
the  texts  of  the  Gospel,  which  present  the  Lord's 
brethren  as  not  believing  His  mission.*  True, 
the  answer  is  given  that  the  Evangelist  intends 
to  speak  only  of  a  relative  unbelief :  or,  again, 
that  those  incredulous  brethren  are  to  be  sought 


*For  a  detailed  justification  of  that  view,  cf.  Calmes, 
Evangile  selon  S.  Jean,  p.  175.  According  to  Baronius, 
Appar.  ad  Annal.,  Ixi-lxvi,  pp.  457-459,  Mary,  wife  of  AI- 
pheus,  sister  of  Clopas  and  St.  Joseph,  remains  distinct 
from  the  other  Mary,  wife  of  Clopas.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  latter  was  cousin  {iit\<t>ri)  of  the  Blessed  Virgin;  so 
that  Simeon  and  Jude  are  cousins  of  the  Lord  for  two 
reasons. — Others  have  attempted  to  combine  the  views  of 
modern  scholars  with  that  of  St.  Jerome:  Joseph  and 
Clopas,  two  brothers,  had  married  two  sisters  who  had  the 
same  name,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  Mary,  wife  of  Clopas. 

*  John  7^;  Mark  321. 


Criticism  and  Conclusion.  315 

outside  the  group  of  the  four  brethren,  mentioned 
in  the  Gospel*  These  explanations  are  not  ab- 
surd: it  remains  to  know  whether  or  not  they 
can  be  received,  taking  the  wording  of  the  texts 
as  it  is. 

The  hypothesis  of  the  identity  agrees  hardly 
better  with  the  book  of  the  Acts  {i^*),\n  which 
the  brethren  of  the  Lord  make  up  a  group,  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  the  Apostles. f  As  to  the  text 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  (i  ^^),  erepov  Se  twv 

dTzoffTokwv  oux  eJSev  el  fxTJ  ^IdxtuSov  rov  ddsX^ov  too  xupiou, 

all  scholars  grant  that  it  can  be  interpreted  in  a 
meaning  favorable  to  either  view.  The  decisive 
words  el  fiTj  do  not  necessarily  imply  that  St.  Paul 
saw,  besides  St.  Peter,  some  other  Apostle;  that 
particle  may  just  as  well  convey  an  exclusive 
meaning:  I  saw  no  other  Apostle,  nobody  at  all, 
except  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord.$ 

It  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  some  apolo- 
gists take  up  too  easily  the  hypothesis  of  the  iden- 
tity,  anxious  as  they  are  to   find  in  it  a  final 


*Cf.  Calmes,  op.  cit.,  in  Joan.,  7^;  Corluy,  op.  cit.,  p. 
148;  CoRNELY,  Introd.  in  Lihros  N.  T.,  iii,  p.  596. 

t  Cf.  /  Cor.,  9  5. 

t  Cf.  Corluy,  op.  cit.,  p.  147. 


3i6  The  Lord's  Brethren. 

solution  of  the  difficulty  raised  by  the  "brethren 
of  the  Lord."  If  James,  the  son  of  Mary,  "that 
of  Clopas,"  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Apostle 
James,  son  of  Alpheus,  evidently  he  was  not  born 
of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus.  But  this  is  an 
"a  priori"  and  biased  consideration,  which  must 
be  excluded  from  the  debate.  Mary's  perpetual 
virginity  and  the  precise  character  of  the  relation- 
ship which  united  Jesus  to  those  whom  the  Gospel 
calls  His  "fratres,"  are  and  must  remain  two 
distinct  questions.* 


*  Cf.  CoRNELY,  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Gal.,  p.  412,  n.  i. 


[the  end.] 


Date  Due 

i^  2  4    41 

''"-  - 

^^/.,,9    , 

S 

'^'V'n-:,, 

^^i^^^n 

f- 

^ 

;K->«•v'••>^>;' 


